Genetic Tools for Coronary Risk Assessment in Type 2 Diabetes: A Cohort Study From the ACCORD Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We evaluated whether the increasing number of genetic loci for coronary artery disease (CAD) identified in the general population could be used to predict the risk of major CAD events (MCE) among participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A weighted genetic risk score (GRS) derived from 204 variants representative of all the 160 CAD loci identified in the general population as of December 2017 was calculated in 5,360 and 1,931 white participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) and Outcome Reduction With Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) studies, respectively. The association between GRS and MCE (combining fatal CAD events, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unstable angina) was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS The GRS was associated with MCE risk in both ACCORD and ORIGIN (hazard ratio [HR] per SD 1.27, 95% CI 1.18–1.37, P = 4 × 10−10, and HR per SD 1.35, 95% CI 1.16–1.58, P = 2 × 10−4, respectively). This association was independent from interventions tested in the trials and persisted, though attenuated, after adjustment for classic cardiovascular risk predictors. Adding the GRS to clinical predictors improved incident MCE risk classification (relative integrated discrimination improvement +8%, P = 7 × 10−4). The performance of this GRS was superior to that of GRS based on the smaller number of CAD loci available in previous years. CONCLUSIONS When combined into a GRS, CAD loci identified in the general population are associated with CAD also in type 2 diabetes. This GRS provides a significant improvement in the ability to correctly predict future MCE, which may increase further with the discovery of new CAD loci.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".