MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306255541 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.917

Aptamer proteomics for biomarker discovery in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

2022· article· en· W4306255541 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan W. Cunningham, L Zhang, B Claggett, William T. Abraham, P Jhund, Lars Køber, Milton Packer, Jean L. Rouleau, Michael R. Zile, Margaret F. Prescott, M Mendelson, Marty Lefkowitz, J McMurray, Scott Solomon, W Chutkow

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGDF15 and Related Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMendelian randomizationHeart failureClinical endpointBiomarkerBiomarker discoveryInternal medicineProteomicsProportional hazards modelEjection fractionClinical trialBioinformaticsNatriuretic peptideOncologyComputational biologyCardiologyBiologyGenotypeGeneticsGenetic variants

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Though current heart failure (HF) biomarkers are highly prognostic, systematically characterizing associations between circulating proteins and risk of subsequent events may improve clinical risk prediction and illuminate new biological pathways. Large-scale assays measuring thousands of proteins now enable unbiased proteomic investigation in clinical trials. Purpose To identify and replicate serum proteins associated with HF events in patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and to develop and validate a proteomic risk score. Methods Serum levels of 4076 proteins were measured at baseline in the ATMOSPHERE (n=1261, 487 events over 6 years) and PARADIGM-HF (n=1257, 287 events over 4 years) trials of chronic HFrEF using a modified aptamer-based proteomics assay. Proteins associated with the primary endpoint, HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, were identified in the ATMOSPHERE discovery cohort (false discovery rate<0.05) by Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, treatment arm, and anticoagulant use, and replicated in PARADIGM-HF (Bonferroni-corrected p<0.05). A proteomic risk score was derived in ATMOSPHERE using Cox LASSO penalized regression and evaluated in PARADIGM-HF compared to the MAGGIC clinical risk score and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). For proteins associated with the primary endpoint, pathway analysis was conducted using Ingenuity Pathway analysis and an exploratory two-sample Mendelian randomization was performed using genetic and outcome data from both trials and protein quantitative trait loci from deCODE to infer which identified proteins contribute to HF prognosis. Results We identified 377 serum proteins associated with the primary endpoint in ATMOSPHERE and replicated 167 in PARADIGM-HF. Prognostic proteins included known HF biomarkers Growth Differentiation Factor 15, NT-proBNP, and Angiopoietin-2, and also a previously unrecognized HF biomarker: Sushi, Von Willebrand Factor Type A, EGF And Pentraxin Domain Containing 1 (SVEP1) (HR 1.60 [95% CI 1.44–1.79] per standard deviation [SD], p=2x10–17) (Table 1). Proteins related to hepatic fibrosis, granulocyte adhesion, and inhibition of matrix metalloproteinases were over-represented. A 64-protein risk score derived in ATMOSPHERE predicted clinical events in PARADIGM-HF with greater discrimination (c-statistic 0.70) than the MAGGIC clinical score (c-statistic 0.61), NT-proBNP (c-statistic 0.65), or both (c-statistic 0.66) (Figure 1). Genetically predicted levels of NT-proBNP, WISP2, FSTL1, and CTSS were associated with the primary endpoint by Mendelian randomization. Conclusions We identify SVEP1, an extracellular matrix protein known to cause inflammation in vascular smooth muscle cells, as a previously unrecognized HF biomarker. A 64-protein score improved risk discrimination compared with NT-proBNP and may assist in identifying high-risk patients for clinical trials or disease management programs. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): The ATMOSPHERE and PARADIGM-HF trials were sponsored by Novartis

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicGDF15 and Related BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207