Shared Genetic Susceptibility to Ischemic Stroke and Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ischemic stroke (IS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) share several risk factors and each has a substantial heritability. We conducted a genome-wide analysis to evaluate the extent of shared genetic determination of the two diseases. METHODS: Genome-wide association data were obtained from the METASTROKE, Coronary Artery Disease Genome-wide Replication and Meta-analysis (CARDIoGRAM), and Coronary Artery Disease (C4D) Genetics consortia. We first analyzed common variants reaching a nominal threshold of significance (P<0.01) for CAD for their association with IS and vice versa. We then examined specific overlap across phenotypes for variants that reached a high threshold of significance. Finally, we conducted a joint meta-analysis on the combined phenotype of IS or CAD. Corresponding analyses were performed restricted to the 2167 individuals with the ischemic large artery stroke (LAS) subtype. RESULTS: Common variants associated with CAD at P<0.01 were associated with a significant excess risk for IS and for LAS and vice versa. Among the 42 known genome-wide significant loci for CAD, 3 and 5 loci were significantly associated with IS and LAS, respectively. In the joint meta-analyses, 15 loci passed genome-wide significance (P<5×10(-8)) for the combined phenotype of IS or CAD and 17 loci passed genome-wide significance for LAS or CAD. Because these loci had prior evidence for genome-wide significance for CAD, we specifically analyzed the respective signals for IS and LAS and found evidence for association at chr12q24/SH2B3 (PIS=1.62×10(-7)) and ABO (PIS=2.6×10(-4)), as well as at HDAC9 (PLAS=2.32×10(-12)), 9p21 (PLAS=3.70×10(-6)), RAI1-PEMT-RASD1 (PLAS=2.69×10(-5)), EDNRA (PLAS=7.29×10(-4)), and CYP17A1-CNNM2-NT5C2 (PLAS=4.9×10(-4)). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate substantial overlap in the genetic risk of IS and particularly the LAS subtype with CAD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".