Race-neutral CVD risk models show parity gains but create clinical harms for Black adults in cohort study

Importance: Health systems are increasingly adopting race-neutral cardiovascular risk prediction tools, yet no study has examined how these choices redistribute preventive treatment at the point of clinical decision-making, particularly for Black individuals who already bear a disproportionate cardiovascular burden. Objective: To evaluate how including race, substituting social determinants of health (SDoH), or excluding both reshapes cardiovascular risk classification, calibration, fairness, and clinical decisions. Design: Retrospective cohort study with repeated cross-validation and integrated decision-focused evaluation, using CARDIA study data with baseline measures from 2010 and cardiovascular outcomes through 2021. Setting: Community-based longitudinal cohort recruited across multiple U.S. cities. Participants: 3,241 Black and White adults without known cardiovascular disease at baseline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three models predicting 10-year incident cardiovascular disease were compared on predictive performance, calibration, fairness metrics, and realized clinical utility at the ACC/AHA 7.5% preventive treatment threshold. Results: Among 3,241 participants (46% Black, mean age 50 years, 6.9% CVD incidence), overall performance was similar across models (AUC 0.762 to 0.768). Predictor choice substantially reshaped clinical decisions at the guideline threshold. The SDoH-based model improved parity metrics but produced systematic underprediction and concentrated new overtreatment among Black participants. The clinical-only model further improved parity metrics but generated new undertreatment, with four cases of untreated CVD and none avoided. No single evaluative dimension captured the full equity consequences. Conclusions and Relevance: Parity metrics improved under both race-neutral models, yet both produced clinical harms concentrated among Black participants not apparent in population-average metrics. The case for race removal has rested on conceptual grounds, but comprehensive empirical evaluation is necessary before health systems can be confident their model choices truly serve those most at risk.