Aims There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention... Show moreAims There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after 'recalibration', a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.Methods and results Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at 'high' 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29 39% of individuals aged >= 40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22-24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44 51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37-39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.Conclusion Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need. Show less
Porcelli, S.; Wee, N. van der; Werff, S. van der; Aghajani, M.; Glennon, J.C.; Heukelum, S. van; ... ; Serretti, A. 2019
The human social brain is complex. Current knowledge fails to define the neurobiological processes underlying social behaviour involving the (patho-) physiological mechanisms that link system-level... Show moreThe human social brain is complex. Current knowledge fails to define the neurobiological processes underlying social behaviour involving the (patho-) physiological mechanisms that link system-level phenomena to the multiple hierarchies of brain function. Unfortunately, such a high complexity may also be associated with a high susceptibility to several pathogenic interventions. Consistently, social deficits sometimes represent the first signs of a number of neuropsychiatric disorders including schizophrenia (SCZ), Alzheimer's disease (AD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) which leads to a progressive social dysfunction. In the present review we summarize present knowledge linking neurobiological substrates sustaining social functioning, social dysfunction and social withdrawal in major psychiatric disorders. Interestingly, AD, SCZ, and MDD affect the social brain in similar ways. Thus, social dysfunction and its most evident clinical expression (i.e., social withdrawal) may represent an innovative transdiagnostic domain, with the potential of being an independent entity in terms of biological roots, with the perspective of targeted interventions. Show less
Schoufour, J.; Haas, S. de; Jonge, E. de; Voortman, T.; Steenweg-de Graaff, J.; Kiefte-de Jong, J.; ... ; Ikram, A. 2017
