Genetic and clinical factors underlying a self-reported family history of heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To estimate how much information conveyed by self-reported family history of heart disease (FHHD) is already explained by clinical and genetic risk factors. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cross-sectional analysis of UK Biobank participants without pre-existing coronary artery disease using a multivariable model with self-reported FHHD as the outcome. Clinical (diabetes, hypertension, smoking, apolipoprotein B-to-apolipoprotein AI ratio, waist-to-hip ratio, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoprotein(a), triglycerides) and genetic risk factors (polygenic risk score for coronary artery disease [PRSCAD], heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia [HeFH]) were exposures. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and cholesterol-lowering medication use. Multiple logistic regression models were fitted to associate FHHD with risk factors, with continuous variables treated as quintiles. Population attributable risks (PAR) were subsequently calculated from the resultant odds ratios. Among 166 714 individuals, 72 052 (43.2%) participants reported an FHHD. In a multivariable model, genetic risk factors PRSCAD (OR 1.30, CI 1.27-1.33) and HeFH (OR 1.31, 1.11-1.54) were most strongly associated with FHHD. Clinical risk factors followed: hypertension (OR 1.18, CI 1.15-1.21), lipoprotein(a) (OR 1.17, CI 1.14-1.20), apolipoprotein B-to-apolipoprotein AI ratio (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.10-1.16), and triglycerides (OR 1.07, CI 1.04-1.10). For the PAR analyses: 21.9% (CI 18.19-25.63) of the risk of reporting an FHHD is attributed to clinical factors, 22.2% (CI% 20.44-23.88) is attributed to genetic factors, and 36.0% (CI 33.31-38.68) is attributed to genetic and clinical factors combined. CONCLUSIONS: A combined model of clinical and genetic risk factors explains only 36% of the likelihood of FHHD, implying additional value in the family history.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".