MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association of Factor V Leiden With Subsequent Atherothrombotic Events

2020· review· en· W3041166249 on OpenAlexaff
Bakhtawar K. Mahmoodi, Vinicius Tragante, Marcus E. Kleber, Michael V. Holmes, Amand F. Schmidt, Raymond O. McCubrey, Laurence J Howe, Kenan Direk, Hooman Allayee, E.V. Baranova, Peter S. Braund, Graciela E. Delgado, Niclas Eriksson, Crystel M. Gijsberts, Yan Gong, Jaana Hartiala, Mahyar Heydarpour, Gerard Pasterkamp, Salma Kotti, Pekka Kuukasjärvi, Petra Lenzini, Daniel L. Levin, Leo‐Pekka Lyytikäinen, Jochen D. Muehlschlegel, Christopher P. Nelson, Kjell Nikus, Anna P. Pilbrow, W.H. Wilson Tang, Sander W. van der Laan, Jessica van Setten, Ragnar O. Vilmundarson, John Deanfield, Panos Deloukas, Frank Dudbridge, Stefan James, Ify Mordi, Andrej Teren, Thomas O. Bergmeijer, Simon C. Body, Michiel L. Bots, Ralph Burkhardt, Rhonda M. Cooper-DeHoff, Sharon Cresci, Nicolas Danchin, Robert N. Doughty, Diederick E. Grobbee, Emil Hagström, Stanley L. Hazen, Claes Held, Imo E. Hoefer, G. Kees Hovingh, Julie A. Johnson, Marcin Kaczor, Mika Kähönen, Olaf H. Klungel, Jari Laurikka, Terho Lehtimäki, Anke H. Maitland‐van der Zee, Ruth McPherson, Adriaan O. Kraaijeveld, Carl J. Pepine, Marek Sanak, Naveed Sattar, Markus Scholz, Tabassome Simon, John A. Spertus, Alexandre F.R. Stewart, Wojciech Szczeklik, Joachim Thiery, Frank L.J. Visseren, Johannes Waltenberger, Mark Richards, Chim C. Lang, Vicky A. Cameron, Axel Åkerblom, Guillaume Paré, Winfried März, Nilesh J. Samani, Aroon D. Hingorani, Jurriën M. ten Berg, Lars Wallentin, Folkert W. Asselbergs, Riyaz S. Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteCanadian Heart Research Centre
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteRosetrees TrustNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMedical Research CouncilNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineFactor V LeidenInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionHazard ratioRisk factorProportional hazards modelStroke (engine)CardiologyThrombosisConfidence intervalVenous thrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Studies examining the role of factor V Leiden among patients at higher risk of atherothrombotic events, such as those with established coronary heart disease (CHD), are lacking. Given that coagulation is involved in the thrombus formation stage on atherosclerotic plaque rupture, we hypothesized that factor V Leiden may be a stronger risk factor for atherothrombotic events in patients with established CHD. Methods: We performed an individual-level meta-analysis including 25 prospective studies (18 cohorts, 3 case-cohorts, 4 randomized trials) from the GENIUS-CHD (Genetics of Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease) consortium involving patients with established CHD at baseline. Participating studies genotyped factor V Leiden status and shared risk estimates for the outcomes of interest using a centrally developed statistical code with harmonized definitions across studies. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to obtain age- and sex-adjusted estimates. The obtained estimates were pooled using fixed-effect meta-analysis. The primary outcome was composite of myocardial infarction and CHD death. Secondary outcomes included any stroke, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. Results: The studies included 69 681 individuals of whom 3190 (4.6%) were either heterozygous or homozygous (n=47) carriers of factor V Leiden. Median follow-up per study ranged from 1.0 to 10.6 years. A total of 20 studies with 61 147 participants and 6849 events contributed to analyses of the primary outcome. Factor V Leiden was not associated with the combined outcome of myocardial infarction and CHD death (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.92–1.16]; I 2 =28%; P -heterogeneity=0.12). Subgroup analysis according to baseline characteristics or strata of traditional cardiovascular risk factors did not show relevant differences. Similarly, risk estimates for the secondary outcomes including stroke, coronary revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality were also close to identity. Conclusions: Factor V Leiden was not associated with increased risk of subsequent atherothrombotic events and mortality in high-risk participants with established and treated CHD. Routine assessment of factor V Leiden status is unlikely to improve atherothrombotic events risk stratification in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.010
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→