Contribution of Lipoprotein(a) to Polygenic Risk Prediction of Coronary Artery Disease: A Prospective UK Biobank Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) is a highly atherogenic lipoprotein subfraction that may contribute to polygenic risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), but the extent of this contribution is unknown. Our objective was to estimate the contribution of Lp(a) to polygenic risk of CAD and to evaluate the respective contributions of Lp(a) and a CAD polygenic risk score (PRS) to CAD. Methods: A total of 372 385 UK Biobank participants of European ancestry free of CAD at baseline were included. Plasma Lp(a) levels were measured and a CAD-PRS was calculated using the LDpred2 algorithm. Over the median follow-up of 12.6 years, 13 538 participants had incident CAD (myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, or coronary angioplasty). Results: The LPA region contribution to the CAD-PRS-mediated CAD risk was modest (7.2% [95% CI, 6.1–8.3]). Lp(a) levels significantly increased the predictive performance of a CAD-PRS including age and sex in Cox regression (C statistic 0.751 versus 0.746, difference, 0.005 [95% CI, 0.004–0.006]). Compared with participants in the bottom CAD-PRS quintile with Lp(a) levels <25 nmol/L (CAD event rate, 1.4%), the hazard ratio for incident CAD in participants in the top CAD-PRS quintile with Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L was 5.45 (95% CI, 4.93–6.03; P =9.35×10 -242 , CAD event rate 6.6%). Conclusions: Compared with individuals with a low genetic risk of CAD (low CAD-PRS and low Lp[a] levels), those with a high genetic risk (high CAD-PRS and high Lp[a] levels) had a 5-fold higher CAD risk. These results highlight a substantial contribution of genetic risk factors to CAD and that accurate estimation of genetic risk of CAD may need to consider blood levels of Lp(a).
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it