Genetic Architecture and Clinical Outcomes of Combined Lipid Disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dyslipoproteinemia often involves simultaneous derangements of multiple lipid traits. We aimed to evaluate the phenotypic and genetic characteristics of combined lipid disturbances in a general population-based cohort. METHODS: Among UK Biobank participants without prevalent coronary artery disease, we used blood lipid and apolipoprotein B concentrations to ascribe individuals into 1 of 6 reproducible and mutually exclusive dyslipoproteinemia subtypes. Incident coronary artery disease risk was estimated for each subtype using Cox proportional hazards models. Phenome-wide analyses and genome-wide association studies were performed for each subtype, followed by in silico causal gene prioritization and heritability analyses. Additionally, the prevalence of disruptive variants in causal genes for Mendelian lipid disorders was assessed using whole-exome sequence data. RESULTS: Among 450 636 UK Biobank participants: 63 (0.01%) had chylomicronemia; 40 005 (8.9%) had hypercholesterolemia; 94 785 (21.0%) had combined hyperlipidemia; 13 998 (3.1%) had remnant hypercholesterolemia; 110 389 (24.5%) had hypertriglyceridemia; and 49 (0.01%) had mixed hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia. Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 11.1 (10.4–11.8) years, incident coronary artery disease risk varied across subtypes, with combined hyperlipidemia exhibiting the largest hazard (hazard ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.84–2.01]; P =2×10 −16 ), even when accounting for non-HDL-C (hazard ratio, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.30–1.60]; P =2.6×10 −12 ). Genome-wide association studies revealed 250 loci significantly associated with dyslipoproteinemia subtypes, of which 72 (28.8%) were not detected in prior single lipid trait genome-wide association studies. Mendelian lipid variant carriers were rare (2.0%) among individuals with dyslipoproteinemia, but polygenic heritability was high, ranging from 23% for remnant hypercholesterolemia to 54% for combined hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous assessment of multiple lipid derangements revealed nuanced differences in coronary artery disease risk and genetic architectures across dyslipoproteinemia subtypes. These findings highlight the importance of looking beyond single lipid traits to better understand combined lipid and lipoprotein phenotypes and implications for disease risk.
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 | 0.001 | 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".