{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044296788482835, 'fraction_numerical': 0.035437430786267994, 'mean_word_length': 4.791666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cardiovascular disease risk assessment in older women: can we improve on Framingham? British Women’s Heart and Health prospective cohort study

Objectives: To develop a cardiovascular risk assessment tool that is feasible and easy to use in primary care (general practice (GP) model). Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: 23 towns in the United Kingdom. Participants: 3582 women aged 60 to 79 years who were free of coronary heart disease (CHD) at entry into the British Women’s Heart and Health Study. Main outcome measures: Predictive performance of a GP model compared with the standard Framingham model for both CHD and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Results: The Framingham tool predicted CHD events over 5 years accurately (predicted 5.7%, observed 5.5%) but overpredicted CVD events (predicted 10.5%, observed 6.8%). In higher-risk groups, Framingham overpredicted both CHD and CVD events and was poorly calibrated for this cohort. Including C-reactive protein and fibrinogen with standard Framingham risk factors did not improve discrimination of the model. The GP model, which used age, systolic blood pressure, smoking habit and self-rated health (all of which can be easily obtained in one surgery visit) performed as well as the Framingham risk tool: area under the receiver operating curve discrimination statistic was 0.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.70) for CHD and 0.67 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.71) for CVD compared with 0.65 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.68) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.69) for the corresponding Framingham models. Conclusions: An alternative risk assessment based on only a simple routine examination and a small number of pertinent questions may be more useful in the primary care setting. This model appears to perform well but needs to be tested in different populations.