Proteomic analysis of cardiorespiratory fitness for prediction of mortality and multisystem disease risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the wide effects of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) on metabolic, cardiovascular, pulmonary and neurological health, challenges in the feasibility and reproducibility of CRF measurements have impeded its use for clinical decision-making. Here we link proteomic profiles to CRF in 14,145 individuals across four international cohorts with diverse CRF ascertainment methods to establish, validate and characterize a proteomic CRF score. In a cohort of around 22,000 individuals in the UK Biobank, a proteomic CRF score was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.48-0.52) per 1 s.d. increase). The proteomic CRF score was also associated with multisystem disease risk and provided risk reclassification and discrimination beyond clinical risk factors, as well as modulating high polygenic risk of certain diseases. Finally, we observed dynamicity of the proteomic CRF score in individuals who undertook a 20-week exercise training program and an association of the score with the degree of the effect of training on CRF, suggesting potential use of the score for personalization of exercise recommendations. These results indicate that population-based proteomics provides biologically relevant molecular readouts of CRF that are additive to genetic risk, potentially modifiable and clinically translatable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".