Increased classical monocyte subsets in South Asians compared to White Caucasians at risk for coronary atherosclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background South Asians (SA) have an increased prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and myocardial infarction compared with age- and sex-adjusted White Caucasians (WC). The mechanism for this increased risk is poorly understood. While classical CD14++CD16- monocytes act as independent predictors of cardiovascular disease, differences in the distribution of monocyte subsets between SA and WC have not been established. Purpose We aimed to determine if differences exist in monocyte subsets between SA and WC at risk for CAD. Methods Our cohort consisted of 119 consecutively enrolled patients (59 SA, 60 WC) at intermediate or higher risk for CAD by the INTERHEART score using self-reported history and physical exam. A single blood sample was collected prospectively for the purpose of monocyte analysis. Flow cytometry using dual colour fluorescence (CD14, CD16) within the monocyte gate was used to identify monocyte subsets (classical, intermediate and non-classical) by staff blinded to the individuals' characteristics. Variables were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-squared test, as appropriate. Eta coefficient was calculated to analyze the relationship between ethnicity and proportion of monocyte subsets. Eta squared values were calculated to assess the impact of ethnicity on monocyte subset proportions. Results The SA group consisted of 64% males with a mean age of 54 (± 9), while the WC group consisted of 55% males with a mean age of 59 (± 7). Both groups had similar body mass index, rates of hypertension, dyslipidemia and family history of premature CAD. Compared to WC, SA had higher prevalence of diabetes (36% vs. 13%, p=0.005) and hemoglobin A1C levels (6.0±1.1% vs. 5.6±0.6%, p<0.001). SA patients had a higher proportion (85.3±10.7% vs. 81.4±11.0%, p=0.009) and total level (449.0±180.4 vs. 388±127.4, p=0.010) of classical CD14++CD16- monocytes compared to WC. There was no difference between the two groups in the proportion of intermediate CD14++CD16+ and non-classical CD14+CD16++ monocytes. There was no association between diabetes and the proportion of monocyte subsets. Ethnicity had a moderate association with the proportion of classical CD14++CD16- monocytes (Eta coefficient = 0.525) with a large effect size (Eta squared = 27.5%). The association of ethnicity with intermediate CD14++CD16+ and non-classical CD14+CD16++ monocytes was either weak or negligible with minimal to no effect size. Conclusion In patients with substantive risk for CAD, SA had a significantly higher proportion and level of classical CD14++CD16- monocytes compared to WC. Our findings provide a novel insight into the potential mechanism of increased CAD susceptibility amongst SA compared to WC. Future studies are needed to determine whether these ethnic differences in the distribution of monocyte subsets can predict susceptibility to developing CAD and suffering atherothrombotic events. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Cardiology Academic Practice Plan grant at the University of British Columbia
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".