Framingham Risk Score (10-year CVD)

This score carries no treatment threshold of its own. The 2008 paper reports a percentage; it does not define low, intermediate and high bands, and the familiar 10% and 20% cut-offs belong to the older ATP III hard CHD Framingham score, which predicts a narrower set of events. Read this number against whichever CPG you are working to, not against those cut-offs.

The Malaysian CPG uses this exact model, and says it is unvalidated here.The bands above — under 10% low, 10–20% intermediate, over 20% high — are from CPG Management of Dyslipidaemia 2017 (5th Edition), which risk-stratifies on the FRS-General CVD score. That same CPG states: “This risk model has not been validated in our local population.” Exactly 10% and exactly 20% are treated as the lower band of each pair here; the CPG writes the ranges as <10, 10–20 and >20 and leaves the boundaries to the reader.

Family history is not in this model, and is not doubled here. Some tools double the result when a first-degree relative had premature coronary disease (men under 55, women under 65). That is a convention, not a finding of the 2008 paper, which did not examine family history at all — so it is mentioned rather than applied. Nothing on this page multiplies your result.

Two different Framingham scores share the name.This is the general CVD model, which counts stroke, TIA, peripheral arterial disease and heart failure alongside coronary events. A result here is not comparable with a “Framingham score” from a tool built on the coronary-only equation.

Treated blood pressure scores higher than the same untreated reading. That is deliberate in the model, not an error: needing treatment to reach a given pressure marks a different risk from reaching it without.

Derived in a predominantly white American cohort aged 30–74 at baseline, and known to calibrate differently in other populations. It is for primary prevention only — it does not apply to someone who has already had a cardiovascular event.