Large-scale circulating proteome association study (CPAS) meta-analysis identifies circulating proteins and pathways predicting incident hip fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hip fractures are associated with significant disability, high cost, and mortality. However, the exact biological mechanisms underlying susceptibility to hip fractures remain incompletely understood. In an exploratory search of the underlying biology as reflected through the circulating proteome, we performed a comprehensive Circulating Proteome Association Study (CPAS) meta-analysis for incident hip fractures. Analyses included 6430 subjects from two prospective cohort studies (Cardiovascular Health Study and Trøndelag Health Study) with circulating proteomics data (aptamer-based 5 K SomaScan version 4.0 assay; 4979 aptamers). Associations between circulating protein levels and incident hip fractures were estimated for each cohort using age and sex-adjusted Cox regression models. Participants experienced 643 incident hip fractures. Compared with the individual studies, inverse-variance weighted meta-analyses yielded more statistically significant associations, identifying 23 aptamers associated with incident hip fractures (conservative Bonferroni correction 0.05/4979, P < 1.0 × 10-5). The aptamers most strongly associated with hip fracture risk corresponded to two proteins of the growth hormone/insulin growth factor system (GHR and IGFBP2), as well as GDF15 and EGFR. High levels of several inflammation-related proteins (CD14, CXCL12, MMP12, ITIH3) were also associated with increased hip fracture risk. Ingenuity pathway analysis identified reduced LXR/RXR activation and increased acute phase response signaling to be overrepresented among those proteins associated with increased hip fracture risk. These analyses identified several circulating proteins and pathways consistently associated with incident hip fractures. These findings underscore the usefulness of the meta-analytic approach for comprehensive CPAS in a similar manner as has previously been observed for large-scale human genetic studies. Future studies should investigate the underlying biology of these potential novel drug targets.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".