Fibroblast Growth Factor-23 and Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibroblast growth factor-23 (FGF-23) is associated with a range of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular diseases in conventional epidemiological studies, but substantial residual confounding may exist. Mendelian randomization approaches can help control for such confounding. METHODS: SCALLOP Consortium data of 19,195 participants were used to generate an FGF-23 genetic score. Data from 337,448 UK Biobank participants were used to estimate associations between higher genetically predicted FGF-23 concentration and the odds of any atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (n=26,266 events), nonatherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (n=12,652), and noncardiovascular diseases previously linked to FGF-23. Measurements of carotid intima-media thickness and left ventricular mass were available in a subset. Associations with cardiovascular outcomes were also tested in three large case-control consortia: CARDIOGRAMplusC4D (coronary artery disease, n=181,249 cases), MEGASTROKE (stroke, n=34,217), and HERMES (heart failure, n=47,309). RESULTS: We identified 34 independent variants for circulating FGF-23, which formed a validated genetic score. There were no associations between genetically predicted FGF-23 and any of the cardiovascular or noncardiovascular outcomes. In UK Biobank, the odds ratio (OR) for any atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease per 1-SD higher genetically predicted logFGF-23 was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.98 to 1.08), and for any nonatherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, it was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.09). The ORs in the case-control consortia were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.03) for coronary artery disease, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.07) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05) for heart failure. In those with imaging, logFGF-23 was not associated with carotid or cardiac abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Genetically predicted FGF-23 levels are not associated with atherosclerotic and nonatherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, suggesting no important causal link. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_01_10_CJN05080422.mp3.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".