Last updated: 2023-03-12
Checks: 1 1
Knit directory: paperscripts/
This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.7.0). The Checks tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The Past versions tab lists the development history.
The R Markdown file has unstaged changes. To know which version of
the R Markdown file created these results, you’ll want to first commit
it to the Git repo. If you’re still working on the analysis, you can
ignore this warning. When you’re finished, you can run
wflow_publish to commit the R Markdown file and build the
HTML.
Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility.
The results in this page were generated with repository version 86da3e7. See the Past versions tab to see a history of the changes made to the R Markdown and HTML files.
Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for
the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results
(you can use wflow_publish or
wflow_git_commit). workflowr only checks the R Markdown
file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it
depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results
were generated:
Unstaged changes:
Modified: analysis/index.Rmd
Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.
These are the previous versions of the repository in which changes were
made to the R Markdown (analysis/index.Rmd) and HTML
(docs/index.html) files. If you’ve configured a remote Git
repository (see ?wflow_git_remote), click on the hyperlinks
in the table below to view the files as they were in that past version.
| File | Version | Author | Date | Message |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| html | 86da3e7 | Your Name | 2023-03-12 | Update |
| html | 1e6ad0f | Your Name | 2023-03-12 | Update |
| html | fd9074e | Your Name | 2023-03-12 | Update |
| Rmd | fc5f035 | Your Name | 2023-03-12 | Update |
| html | fc5f035 | Your Name | 2023-03-12 | Update |
| Rmd | b7ec3d3 | Your Name | 2023-03-11 | first |
| html | b7ec3d3 | Your Name | 2023-03-11 | first |
We have the workbook and html output for all the figures in Urbut et al 2023.
Figure 1 Here is the hazard rate and proportion of variation explained in the UK Biobank
Figure 1n Here is the hazard rate and proportion of variation explained in the Framingham Offspring Cohort
Figure 2 Here are the relative and absolute rates of CAD by PRS and PCE percentile for three age categories
Figure 3 Here is the stratification by age and PCE using the UK Biobank
Figure 4 Here is the proportion of future events captured using a PCE threshold of 7.5% versus a PRS threshold of greater than 80% to predict future events
Figure 5 Here is the AUC of models using genomic, non genomic or both
Figure 1 Supplemental Here is the net reclassification of events and non events using PCE versus PRS
Figure 2 Supplemental Here is the proportion of individuals in each PCE risk class by age
We also have a variety of exlucsion tables and summary tables
Table 1 Here is the summary characterisitics of each cohort, and of division by ASCVD and PRS risk calss in the UK Biobank subset
Exclusions Here are the flowcharts of exclusionary criteria for creating the cohorts used in these analyses.