Impact of Insulin Receptor Substrate‐1 rs956115 and CYP2C19 rs4244285 Genotypes on Clinical Outcome of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Insulin receptor substrate‐1 ( IRS‐1 ) rs956115 is associated with vascular risk in patients with coronary artery disease and concomitant diabetes. CYP2C19*2 (rs4244285) modulates clopidogrel response and predicts the outcome of coronary artery disease. This study was designed to explore the association between IRS‐1 , CYP2C19*2 genotypes, platelet reactivity, and 1‐year outcome in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Results Genotyping was performed using an improved multiplex ligation detection reaction technique. Platelet aggregation was assessed by light transmission aggregometry. Major adverse cardiovascular events were defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. A total of 2213 consecutive patients were screened and 1614 were recruited. At 1 month, patients with IRS‐1 CG genotype had significantly lower levels of ADP‐induced platelet aggregation compared with patients with CC homozygotes. Patients with IRS‐1 CG or GG genotype had a 2.09‐fold higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with those with CC homozygotes (95% CI, 1.04–4.19; P =0.0376). By comparison, patients with CYP2C19*2 GA or AA genotype had higher ADP‐induced platelet aggregation compared with patients with GG homozygotes. Although there was no significant difference in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events between patients with GA/AA and GG genotypes, patients with GA genotype had a 2.19‐fold higher risk than those with GG homozygotes (95% CI, 1.13–4.24; P =0.0200). No interaction between IRS‐1 and CYP2C19*2 genotypes was observed. Conclusions In patients following percutaneous coronary intervention, IRS‐1 GG/CG and CYP2C19*2 GA genotypes were associated with 2.09‐ and 2.19‐fold increased cardiovascular risk, respectively, at 1‐year follow‐up. The association between IRS‐1 genotypes and major adverse cardiovascular events appeared to be independent of known clinical predictors. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01968499.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".