The Risk Score That Wasn’t Built for You

How heart attacks and strokes differ in women, and what the calculators still miss

At a Glance

• Heart disease is the leading cause of death for American women. Yet many women still do not recognize it as their leading health threat.

• Women experience the same common plaque-related heart attacks and strokes as men, but some patterns—including SCAD, MINOCA, coronary microvascular dysfunction, and takotsubo cardiomyopathy—are relatively more common in women.

• A risk calculator can be useful, but it cannot incorporate information it was never designed to collect: pregnancy complications, menopause timing, PMOS (formerly PCOS), autoimmune disease, migraine with aura, cancer treatment, symptoms, and much of a woman’s personal context.

• The 2026 cholesterol guideline recommends using PREVENT-ASCVD for many primary-prevention lipid decisions, then personalizing the assessment with risk factors outside the calculator—including reproductive risk markers.

• Statins reduce cardiovascular events in appropriately selected women as they do in men. The decision should be based on a woman’s full risk story—not on sex alone, a single LDL number, or a calculator result in isolation.

---

A woman in her early fifties sits across from me with her laboratory results and a printout from an online risk calculator. Her 10-year risk is “low.” She is relieved, and I understand why.

The calculator did not make a mistake. It used the information it was designed to use.

Then I ask the questions it never asked. She had preeclampsia with both pregnancies. Her periods stopped at 43. She has had migraine with visual aura since her twenties. None of those facts appears in the number she was handed.

She is a composite. Details from several patients are combined so that no one can be identified, and nothing here is individual medical advice.

This is the companion to this week’s article in The Integrative Cardiologist, “Do You Really Need a Statin?” That article explains why prevention decisions should begin with overall cardiovascular risk, not one cholesterol value. Here, I want to address the question that comes next:

How well does the usual risk conversation work for women, and what can it miss?

A risk score is useful, but it is not a biography. It estimates the future likelihood of certain cardiovascular events from the information entered into it. If nobody asks about pregnancy complications, early menopause, PMOS (formerly PCOS), autoimmune disease, migraine with aura, cancer treatment, or a strong family history, those facts do not disappear. They simply have to be brought into the conversation another way.

The threat many women underestimate

Heart disease remains the leading cause of death among women in the United States, accounting for roughly 1 in 5 female deaths.¹ Yet awareness has been inconsistent: a national American Heart Association survey found that the proportion of women who identified heart disease as their leading cause of death fell from 65% in 2009 to 44% in 2019.²

Stroke matters as well. At age 55, a woman’s lifetime risk of stroke is about 1 in 5, compared with roughly 1 in 6 for a man.³ Part of that difference reflects women’s longer average life expectancy, but it should not be interpreted as a reason to wait until later life to take prevention seriously.

Population averages never explain an individual woman’s symptoms, risk, or prognosis. A woman in her forties can have serious vascular disease. A woman in her seventies may have a low burden of plaque. The point of prevention is not to predict one person’s fate from a demographic category. It is to recognize patterns early enough to change the trajectory.

Women have the same disease—and some different patterns

Women experience the same common plaque-related heart attacks and strokes as men. Cholesterol-containing particles enter the artery wall, plaque develops, and an acute event can occur when plaque ruptures or erodes and a clot forms.⁴

Those familiar processes remain central to women’s cardiovascular prevention.

But several other causes and patterns of myocardial injury, chest pain, or heart attack are relatively more common in women. Knowing about them does not mean every episode of chest discomfort is one of these conditions. It means a low prevention score or a “normal” large-vessel angiogram does not explain every cardiovascular symptom.

Plaque erosion

Not every coronary clot begins with a plaque rupture. Sometimes the inner lining of the artery erodes, allowing a clot to form without the classic rupture of a lipid-rich plaque.

Autopsy studies suggest that plaque erosion is relatively more common in younger women than in men.⁴,⁵ It is still part of the broader world of atherosclerotic disease, but it reminds us that heart attacks do not always look identical under the microscope or on an angiogram.

SCAD

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection, or SCAD, is a tear or bleeding within the wall of a coronary artery. It is not the usual cholesterol-plaque process.

SCAD occurs predominantly in women and is an important cause of heart attack in younger and middle-aged women. It can account for up to 35% of heart attacks in women age 50 or younger in some populations, and it is a leading cause of pregnancy-associated heart attack.⁶,⁷

Traditional risk calculators were not designed to forecast SCAD. That does not mean blood pressure, smoking, cholesterol, exercise, and overall cardiovascular health become irrelevant. It means SCAD belongs to a different clinical category from the atherosclerotic events that most prevention calculators estimate.

MINOCA

MINOCA means myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries. It is not a single diagnosis. It is a working description of a heart attack in which angiography does not show a major obstructive coronary blockage.

Some MINOCA events are caused by plaque disruption and overlap with conventional atherosclerotic disease. Others may reflect coronary spasm, SCAD, embolism, coronary microvascular dysfunction, or other mechanisms.

Women make up a larger share of patients with MINOCA than of patients with classic obstructive coronary heart attacks.⁵ That is one reason clinicians should not equate a “clean” angiogram with “nothing happened” or assume that a woman’s symptoms were not cardiac.

Coronary microvascular dysfunction

Many women have chest symptoms and evidence of ischemia despite having no major blockage on a standard coronary angiogram. In some cases, the problem involves the heart’s smaller blood vessels or the way those vessels respond to stress.

Coronary microvascular dysfunction is one cause of ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries, or INOCA.⁸ It can be difficult to diagnose, frustrating for patients, and easily minimized when conventional tests do not show an obvious large-vessel blockage.

A prevention calculator was not designed to diagnose this condition. A low score should never be used to dismiss persistent exertional chest pressure, unexplained shortness of breath, or other concerning symptoms.

Takotsubo cardiomyopathy

Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, sometimes called stress cardiomyopathy, is a sudden weakening of the heart muscle often triggered by intense emotional or physical stress. It occurs overwhelmingly in women, particularly after menopause.⁹

It is not a cholesterol condition, and it is not a condition a risk calculator can predict. But it is a reminder that the heart is influenced by more than the variables listed on a standard lipid panel.

Symptoms still matter more than a score

The most harmful misconception about women’s heart attacks is that women usually have no chest symptoms.

They often do.

In a large study of adults age 55 and younger who had heart attacks, 87% of women reported chest pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort—about the same proportion as men.¹⁰ Women were more likely to report these additional symptom categories:

• Pain or discomfort in the jaw, neck, arms, or between the shoulder blades

• Shortness of breath

• Palpitations

• Indigestion, nausea, or stomach pain, pressure, burning, or discomfort¹⁰

Weakness or fatigue was also reported, but the difference between women and men was not statistically significant in this study.¹⁰

Women were also more likely to attribute symptoms to anxiety or stress.¹⁰ That should make all of us more careful, not more dismissive.

Do not use a risk calculator to explain away symptoms.

New or worsening chest pressure, tightness, heaviness, burning, or discomfort—especially with shortness of breath, sweating, fainting, nausea, unusual exhaustion, or pain radiating to the jaw, arm, shoulder, back, or upper abdomen—deserves urgent attention. Call emergency services rather than driving yourself.¹¹

A prevention score is for planning. It does not rule out heart disease, myocardial injury, or another urgent condition in someone who is symptomatic.

The tests have evolved, too

High-sensitivity troponin testing has made it possible to detect smaller degrees of heart-muscle injury than older assays could identify.

Women generally have lower baseline troponin concentrations than men. For that reason, sex-specific high-sensitivity troponin thresholds can improve recognition of myocardial injury in women in some clinical settings.¹² The exact cutoff depends on the assay used by the laboratory; there is no single female and male number that applies everywhere.

This is a technical point with a practical meaning: a “normal” result should always be interpreted in the context of the laboratory’s assay, the timing of symptoms, repeat measurements, ECG findings, and the person’s overall presentation.

No laboratory test should be interpreted in isolation.

What the calculators were built to do

The history of cardiovascular prevention is a history of improving estimates.

Framingham showed that heart disease was not simply fate or aging. Blood pressure, smoking, diabetes, and cholesterol could help predict future risk.¹³ Later models combined these factors, added stroke, and broadened the populations used to derive the estimates.¹³,¹⁴

More recently, the PREVENT-ASCVD equations were developed to estimate atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults without known cardiovascular disease.¹⁴ Ten-year estimates are used for adults ages 30 to 79, and 30-year estimates for adults ages 30 to 59.¹⁵ In the 2026 cholesterol guideline, PREVENT-ASCVD is the recommended first-line tool for many primary-prevention lipid decisions in adults ages 30 to 79 with LDL cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL who do not have known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or documented subclinical atherosclerosis.¹⁶

PREVENT uses information such as age, sex, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney function, diabetes, smoking, and medication use. It improves on older approaches in important ways, including longer-term estimation and the removal of race as a biologic input.¹⁴

But it does not include every relevant part of a woman’s cardiovascular story.

That is not a failure of the calculator. It is a limitation of any model. A calculation can only work with the variables it has been given.

Earlier equations also sometimes overpredicted risk when applied to contemporary external populations.¹⁷,¹⁸ That could favor medication in some people whose expected absolute benefit was modest.¹⁸ At the same time, any calculator can underestimate or incompletely characterize risk when important history is absent.

Both problems support the same conclusion: a number should start a conversation, not end one.

What a woman’s history can add

Pregnancy history

Pregnancy can reveal cardiovascular vulnerability years before high blood pressure, diabetes, or vascular disease becomes obvious later in life.

A history of preeclampsia is associated with a substantially higher future risk of chronic hypertension, coronary heart disease, and stroke.¹⁹ Gestational diabetes raises the likelihood of future type 2 diabetes and is also associated with a higher long-term risk of cardiovascular events.¹⁹,²⁰ Preterm delivery, placental abruption, stillbirth, and delivery of a small-for-gestational-age infant have also been linked with later cardiovascular risk.¹⁹⁻²¹

A pregnancy complication is not a personal failure. It does not guarantee heart disease. It is medical history that can help guide earlier attention to blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, metabolic health, sleep, physical activity, and long-term prevention.

If you had a complicated pregnancy, it belongs in your cardiovascular history for life.

When menopause arrived

Menopause is not a disease, but its timing matters.

Premature menopause, before age 40, and early menopause, before age 45, are associated with higher future cardiovascular risk.²² The transition through menopause can also coincide with increases in LDL cholesterol, ApoB, lipoprotein(a), and central adiposity.²³,²⁴ Insulin resistance and blood pressure may also worsen during midlife, with aging contributing importantly to those changes.²³

These changes do not mean every woman needs medication at menopause. They do mean that midlife is a sensible time to review risk factors rather than assume that a previously favorable lipid panel will remain unchanged.

PMOS, formerly called PCOS

Polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) is the new name for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).²⁵ PMOS is often linked with insulin resistance, higher triglycerides, central weight gain, sleep apnea, and a greater likelihood of later diabetes.²⁶,²⁷

The evidence for long-term cardiovascular events is still evolving, and not every person with PMOS has the same degree of risk.²⁸ But PMOS deserves attention as part of a woman’s cardiometabolic history—especially when it travels with elevated blood pressure, abnormal glucose, high triglycerides, or a strong family history.

The 2026 guideline includes PMOS, under its former name PCOS, among reproductive risk markers that can help personalize prevention beyond a calculated score.¹⁶

Autoimmune and inflammatory disease

Women account for most diagnoses of many autoimmune diseases.²⁹ Conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis are associated with higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk through inflammatory activity, treatment effects, and traditional risk factors.¹⁶

For women with these conditions, the usual risk-factor conversation still matters: blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking, glucose, activity, sleep, and medication adherence. But it should happen with the awareness that the calculator may not fully reflect the added risk.

Migraine with aura

Migraine with aura is associated with a higher risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.³⁰ Smoking and combined hormonal contraceptives containing estrogen can further increase ischemic stroke risk.³¹,³²

It is not a reason for panic. It is a reason to take modifiable vascular risk factors seriously and to make sure migraine history is included in discussions of contraception, menopausal hormone therapy, blood pressure, smoking, and prevention.

Breast cancer treatment

Some breast-cancer treatments can affect the heart and blood vessels. Depending on the treatment, risks may include cardiomyopathy, coronary disease, hypertension, arrhythmia, or other cardiovascular complications.³³

If you have a history of breast cancer treatment, bring the details to your clinician, especially chest radiation, anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy, or any treatment your oncology team identified as potentially cardiotoxic. Survivorship care should include attention to cardiovascular health.

When a calcium score helps

A coronary artery calcium score, or CAC score, uses a low-radiation CT scan to identify calcified plaque in the coronary arteries.

It can be useful when a prevention decision remains genuinely uncertain—not as a routine test for everyone and not as a substitute for evaluating symptoms.

For selected women, generally age 45 or older with borderline or intermediate estimated risk, CAC can help refine a statin discussion when the result would change the plan. The 2026 guideline supports this selective use rather than universal scanning.¹⁶

A CAC score of zero can be reassuring in the right clinical setting. But it does not erase risk from smoking, diabetes, markedly elevated LDL cholesterol, a strong family history, symptoms, or noncalcified plaque.¹⁶

Any coronary calcium is evidence of coronary atherosclerosis and deserves a clinical conversation. Its meaning depends on the absolute score, age, percentile, symptoms, other risk factors, and—most importantly—what action the result would change.

It is information, not a verdict.

Where statins fit for women

When a woman’s risk calls for lipid-lowering treatment, the evidence is reassuring: statins reduce major vascular events in women as well as in men when compared at a similar baseline level of risk.³⁴

That does not mean every woman needs a statin. It means sex is not a reason to withhold one when the anticipated benefit is meaningful.

In the U.S. PALM registry, women eligible for statin therapy were more likely than men to report never having been offered a statin and were less likely to receive guideline-recommended statin intensity.³⁵ The study identified differences in treatment offers, acceptance, and discontinuation, but it could not establish why those differences occurred.³⁵

Muscle symptoms should be taken seriously. Blinded trials show that many symptoms reported during statin treatment also occur during placebo periods.³⁶ That does not make symptoms imaginary, and some people do have genuine statin intolerance. My companion article, “Statins, Muscle Pain, and CoQ10,” in The Integrative Cardiologist explains how to evaluate symptoms, consider medication interactions and alternative causes, and weigh established medication strategies against the uncertain evidence for CoQ10.

Hormone therapy is a separate decision. It is not a substitute for cardiovascular prevention or an alternative to addressing blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, cholesterol, or established vascular disease. For more on that distinction, see “Two Decisions, Not One”.

Pregnancy planning

For most people planning pregnancy, statins are stopped before conception attempts and avoided during pregnancy and breastfeeding.¹⁶,³⁷ However, women with very high-risk established atherosclerotic disease or familial hypercholesterolemia need individualized pre-pregnancy counseling with their treating specialists.¹⁶ Some non-statin options may be appropriate during pregnancy or breastfeeding, so this is not a blanket rule for every lipid-lowering treatment.¹⁶

Do not stop or start a medication based on a general article alone. This is a conversation to have before pregnancy whenever possible.

What to bring to your next appointment

You do not need to calculate everything yourself. You need to make sure the right information is part of the conversation.

1. Your pregnancy history: Preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, preterm delivery, stillbirth, placental abruption, or a small-for-gestational-age baby.

2. Your menopause history: The age your periods stopped and whether menopause was natural, surgical, or treatment-related.

3. PMOS (formerly PCOS) and autoimmune history: PMOS, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, or another inflammatory or autoimmune condition.

4. Migraine with aura: Especially if you smoke or use combined hormonal contraceptives containing estrogen.

5. Cancer-treatment history: Chest radiation, anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy, or other potentially cardiotoxic treatment.

6. Family history: Heart attack, stroke, sudden cardiac death, or very high cholesterol at an unusually young age in parents, siblings, or children.

7. Questions about risk refinement: Ask whether your 10-year PREVENT estimate, a 30-year estimate if you are age 30 to 59, ApoB, lipoprotein(a), or a calcium score would meaningfully change your prevention plan.

8. Your symptoms now: Ask whether your symptoms require evaluation now rather than only a risk calculation. A risk score helps with prevention planning; it does not rule out heart disease when someone has symptoms.

Then work on what the calculator can see: blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, sleep, movement, smoking, metabolic health, and the practical conditions that make change easier or harder. For a fuller midlife prevention plan, see “A Cholesterol Plan for Your Menopause Transition”.

The bottom line

A risk score is a starting point, not a verdict.

It is useful precisely because it turns important information into a practical estimate. But for women in midlife and beyond, good prevention requires more than entering a few numbers into a calculator.

It requires asking about the pregnancies, diagnoses, treatments, symptoms, and transitions that shaped the years before the calculator began.

---

This post is for general educational purposes only. It is not medical advice, is not a substitute for care from your own physician, and does not create a physician-patient relationship. Do not start, stop, or change any treatment based on what you read here. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call 911 or go to the nearest emergency department.

---

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About women and heart disease. https://www.cdc.gov/heart-disease/about/women-and-heart-disease.html

2. Cushman M, Shay CM, Howard VJ, et al. Ten-year differences in women’s awareness related to coronary heart disease: results of the 2019 American Heart Association National Survey. Circulation. 2021;143:e239–e248. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907

3. Seshadri S, Beiser A, Kelly-Hayes M, et al. The lifetime risk of stroke: estimates from the Framingham Study. Stroke. 2006;37:345–350. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000199613.38911.b2

4. Virmani R, Burke AP, Farb A, Kolodgie FD. Pathology of the vulnerable plaque. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:C13–C18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16631505/

5. Tamis-Holland JE, Jneid H, Reynolds HR, et al. Contemporary diagnosis and management of patients with myocardial infarction in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2019;139:e891–e908. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000670

6. Saw J, Mancini GBJ, Humphries KH. Contemporary review on spontaneous coronary artery dissection. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:297–312. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27417009/

7. Hayes SN, Kim ESH, Saw J, et al. Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: current state of the science. Circulation. 2018;137:e523–e557. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000564

8. Bairey Merz CN, Pepine CJ, Walsh MN, Fleg JL. Ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease: developing evidence-based therapies and research agenda. Circulation. 2017;135:1075–1092. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28289007/

9. Ghadri JR, Wittstein IS, Prasad A, et al. International expert consensus document on Takotsubo syndrome. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:2032–2046. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29850871/

10. Lichtman JH, Leifheit EC, Safdar B, et al. Sex differences in the presentation and perception of symptoms among young patients with myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2018;137:781–790. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5822747/

11. American Heart Association. Heart Attack Symptoms in Women. Accessed September 29, 2026. https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/heart-attack/warning-signs-of-a-heart-attack/heart-attack-symptoms-in-women

12. Lee KK, Ferry AV, Anand A, et al. Sex-specific thresholds of high-sensitivity troponin in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:2032–2043. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6876271/

13. D’Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117:743–753. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18212285/

14. Khan SS, Matsushita K, Sang Y, et al. Development and validation of the American Heart Association’s PREVENT equations. Circulation. 2024;149:430–449. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626

15. American Heart Association News. New cardiovascular risk tool could guide who needs medication for high blood pressure. July 15, 2024. Accessed September 29, 2026. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/07/15/new-cardiovascular-risk-tool-could-guide-who-needs-medication-for-high-blood-pressure

16. Blumenthal RS, Morris PB, Gaudino M, et al. 2026 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Dyslipidemia: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026;87:2624–2757. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.11.016

17. DeFilippis AP, Young R, Carrubba CJ, et al. An analysis of calibration and discrimination among multiple cardiovascular risk scores in a modern multiethnic cohort. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:266–275. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25686167/

18. Yadlowsky S, Hayward RA, Sussman JB, McClelland RL, Min YI, Basu S. Clinical implications of revised pooled cohort equations for estimating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:20–29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29868850/

19. Parikh NI, Gonzalez JM, Anderson CAM, et al. Adverse pregnancy outcomes and cardiovascular disease risk: unique opportunities for cardiovascular disease prevention in women. Circulation. 2021;143:e902–e916. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000961

20. Grandi SM, Filion KB, Yoon S, et al. Cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality in women with a history of pregnancy complications. Circulation. 2019;139:1069–1079. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30779636/

21. Ngo AD, Roberts CL, Chen JS, Figtree G. Delivery of a small-for-gestational-age infant and risk of maternal cardiovascular disease: a population-based record linkage study. Heart Lung Circ. 2015;24:696–704. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25697383/

22. Zhu D, Chung HF, Dobson AJ, et al. Age at natural menopause and risk of incident cardiovascular disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4:e553–e564. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31588031/

23. El Khoudary SR, Greendale G, Crawford SL, et al. The menopause transition and women’s health at midlife: a progress report from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Menopause. 2019;26:1213–1227. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6784846/

24. Derby CA, Crawford SL, Pasternak RC, et al. Lipid changes during the menopause transition in relation to age and weight: the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169:1352–1361. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2727246/

25. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. PCOS is Now PMOS: Understanding the Name Change. May 27, 2026. Accessed September 28, 2026. https://www.asrm.org/news-and-events/asrm-news/latest-news/may-27-2026-pcos-is-now-pmos-understanding-the-name-change/

26. Teede HJ, Tay CT, Laven JJE, et al. Recommendations From the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023;108:2447–2469. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10505534/

27. Wild RA, Rizzo M, Clifton S, Carmina E. Lipid levels in polycystic ovary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1073–1079.e1–11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21247558/

28. Ramezani Tehrani F, Amiri M, Behboudi-Gandevani S, Bidhendi-Yarandi R, Carmina E. Cardiovascular events among reproductive and menopausal age women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020;36:12–23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31385729/

29. National Institutes of Health. Understanding sex differences in autoimmune disease. February 13, 2024. Accessed September 29, 2026. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/understanding-sex-differences-autoimmune-disease

30. Kurth T, Gaziano JM, Cook NR, Logroscino G, Diener HC, Buring JE. Migraine and risk of cardiovascular disease in women. JAMA. 2006;296:283–291. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/211106

31. Schürks M, Rist PM, Bigal ME, Buring JE, Lipton RB, Kurth T. Migraine and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2009;339:b3914. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19861375/

32. Bushnell C, Kernan WN, Sharrief AZ, et al. 2024 Guideline for the primary prevention of stroke: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2024;55:e344–e424. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39429201/

33. Mehta LS, Watson KE, Barac A, et al. Cardiovascular disease and breast cancer: where these entities intersect. Circulation. 2018;137:e30–e66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6722327/

34. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women: meta-analysis of individual data from 174,000 participants in 27 randomised trials. Lancet. 2015;385:1397–1405. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61368-4/abstract

35. Nanna MG, Wang TY, Xiang Q, et al. Sex differences in the use of statins in community practice: the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12:e005562. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6903404/

36. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Effect of statin therapy on muscle symptoms: an individual participant data meta-analysis of large-scale, randomised, double-blind trials. Lancet. 2022;400:832–845. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36049498/

37. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA requests removal of strongest warning against using cholesterol-lowering statins during pregnancy; still advises most pregnant patients should stop taking statins. Drug Safety Communication. July 20, 2021. Accessed September 29, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requests-removal-strongest-warning-against-using-cholesterol-lowering-statins-during-pregnancy