 |
 |

Algorithms for Assessing Cardiovascular Risk in WomenReply
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
In Reply: The relevant end point for cardiovascular risk prediction models must include myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization procedures, and cardiovascular death; this is what is of concern to patients and is the end point of most intervention trials. We thus disagree with Dr Pencina and colleagues that our data in Table 5 has limited merit. While we agree that Table 4 is more appropriate for model assessment, we included Table 5 because the ATP III model is most often used in clinical practice. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4 where algorithms were directly compared using a common end point, we again found better performance for the new models than for the old. Although they focus on a 54-patient subgroup in the test data set, they do not consider the 415 women in the other 5 cells for whom the vast majority are reclassified correctly. A Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test1 can formally . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Paul M Ridker, MD
pridker@partners.org
Nancy R. Cook, ScD
Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston, Massachusetts
RELATED LETTERS
Algorithms for Assessing Cardiovascular Risk in Women
Michael J. Pencina, Ramachandran S. Vasan, and Ralph B. DAgostino, Sr
JAMA. 2007;298(2):175-176.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Algorithms for Assessing Cardiovascular Risk in Women
Thomas J. Wang, Sekar Kathiresan, and Donald M. Lloyd-Jones
JAMA. 2007;298(2):176.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Algorithms for Assessing Cardiovascular Risk in Women
Richard Stevens and Ruth Coleman
JAMA. 2007;298(2):176-177.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Algorithms for Assessing Cardiovascular Risk in Women
Lori B. Daniels, Ori Ben-Yehuda, and Alan S. Maisel
JAMA. 2007;298(2):177.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|