MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107329362 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.3396

PEAR1 rs12041331 polymorphisms and the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3107329362 on OpenAlexaff
Ke Xu, Xiangyi Zheng, Jun Cai, Noel Chan, Lan Shen, Ben He

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionInternal medicineAcute coronary syndromeConventional PCIMeta-analysisSubgroup analysisCardiologyPopulationAdverse effectMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Platelet endothelial aggregation receptor-1 (PEAR1), expressed in endothelium, platelets, and other tissues, is a platelet transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor involved in platelet aggregation and platelet-platelet contact. The minor allele (A) in intron 1 of the PEAR1 gene (rs12041331, G>A) is associated with an reduced PEAR1 protein expression and suppressed platelet aggregation response toward multiple agonists. But current evidences on the association between PEAR1 rs12041331 polymorphisms and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are discordant. Purpose To characterize and quantify the association between PEAR1 rs12041331 polymorphisms and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ACS and/or PCI. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SinoMed, CNKI, and Wanfang Data before Dec 7, 2019 to identify studies evaluating the association between PEAR1 rs12041331 polymorphisms and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ACS and/or PCI. The primary outcome was the major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (MACEs) defined by each study. We adopted the Mantel-Haenszel method to calculate the relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the corresponding P values using the random effect model. To assess the effect of ethnicity, we performed the subgroup analyses per ethnic population using the fix effect model. Results Among 542 citations identified along with 1 from additional sources, we included 4 studies, which documented 218 MACEs in 8180 patients. The A allele frequency in each study was comparable with that reported in the 1000 Genome Project, but varied among ethnic populations, that is 45.8% in East Asians, 46.5% in American Africans, and 9.2% in Caucasians, adopted from the 1000 Genome Project. A-allele carriers are associated with a 54% increase in MACEs than non-A-carriers (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.10–2.16; P=0.01) with a low but non-significant heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses showed that A-allele carriers tend to have more MACEs than non-A-allele carriers despite of ethnicity, that is 1.32-fold increase in East Asians (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.99–1.77; P=0.06), 2.43-fold in Caucasians (RR, 2.43; 95% CI, 0.99–5.98; P=0.05), and 3.56-fold (RR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.08–11.70; P=0.04) in American Africans. Conclusions Our study indicates that the PEAR1 rs12041331 is prognostic in patients with ACS and/or PCI and treated with DAPT, which might be not caused by the associations with pharmacological response to antiplatelet agents. Further investigations are thus required to address the unrevealing mechanisms of PEAR1, especially on the development of atherosclerosis and the occurrence of acute adverse ischemic events. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.027
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207