Search for: All records

ImportanceSince 2013, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have recommended the pooled cohort equations (PCEs) for estimating the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). An AHA scientific advisory group recently developed the Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equations, which incorporated kidney measures, removed race as an input, and improved calibration in contemporary populations. PREVENT is known to produce ASCVD risk predictions that are lower than those produced by the PCEs, but the potential clinical implications have not been quantified. ObjectiveTo estimate the number of US adults who would experience changes in risk categorization, treatment eligibility, or clinical outcomes when applying PREVENT equations to existing ACC and AHA guidelines. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsNationally representative cross-sectional sample of 7765 US adults aged 30 to 79 years who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys of 2011 to March 2020, which had response rates ranging from 47% to 70%. Main Outcomes and MeasuresDifferences in predicted 10-year ASCVD risk, ACC and AHA risk categorization, eligibility for statin or antihypertensive therapy, and projected occurrences of myocardial infarction or stroke. ResultsIn a nationally representative sample of 7765 US adults aged 30 to 79 years (median age, 53 years; 51.3% women), it was estimated that using PREVENT equations would reclassify approximately half of US adults to lower ACC and AHA risk categories (53.0% [95% CI, 51.2%-54.8%]) and very few US adults to higher risk categories (0.41% [95% CI, 0.25%-0.62%]). The number of US adults receiving or recommended for preventive treatment would decrease by an estimated 14.3 million (95% CI, 12.6 million-15.9 million) for statin therapy and 2.62 million (95% CI, 2.02 million-3.21 million) for antihypertensive therapy. The study estimated that, over 10 years, these decreases in treatment eligibility could result in 107 000 additional occurrences of myocardial infarction or stroke. Eligibility changes would affect twice as many men as women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. Conclusion and RelevanceBy assigning lower ASCVD risk predictions, application of the PREVENT equations to existing treatment thresholds could reduce eligibility for statin and antihypertensive therapy among 15.8 million US adults. 

The increased capabilities of generative artificial intelligence (AI) have dramatically expanded its possible use cases in medicine. We provide a comprehensive overview of generative AI use cases for clinicians, patients, clinical trial organizers, researchers, and trainees. We then discuss the many challenges—including maintaining privacy and security, improving transparency and interpretability, upholding equity, and rigorously evaluating models—that must be overcome to realize this potential, as well as the open research directions they give rise to. 

Despite ethical and historical arguments for removing race from clinical algorithms, the consequences of removal remain unclear. Here, we highlight a largely undiscussed consideration in this debate: varying data quality of input features across race groups. For example, family history of cancer is an essential predictor in cancer risk prediction algorithms but is less reliably documented for Black participants and may therefore be less predictive of cancer outcomes. Using data from the Southern Community Cohort Study, we assessed whether race adjustments could allow risk prediction models to capture varying data quality by race, focusing on colorectal cancer risk prediction. We analyzed 77,836 adults with no history of colorectal cancer at baseline. The predictive value of self-reported family history was greater for White participants than for Black participants. We compared two cancer risk prediction algorithms—a race-blind algorithm which included standard colorectal cancer risk factors but not race, and a race-adjusted algorithm which additionally included race. Relative to the race-blind algorithm, the race-adjusted algorithm improved predictive performance, as measured by goodness of fit in a likelihood ratio test (P-value: <0.001) and area under the receiving operating characteristic curve among Black participants (P-value: 0.006). Because the race-blind algorithm underpredicted risk for Black participants, the race-adjusted algorithm increased the fraction of Black participants among the predicted high-risk group, potentially increasing access to screening. More broadly, this study shows that race adjustments may be beneficial when the data quality of key predictors in clinical algorithms differs by race group.