MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408957455 · doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.101680

Polygenic Risk Scores in Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery

2025· article· en· W4408957455 on OpenAlexafffund
Ann Le, Guillaume Paré, P J Devereaux, Quazi Ibrahim, Shihong Mao, Michael Chong, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Emmanuelle Duceppe, Michael Ke Wang, Ameen Patel, Maria Tiboni, Patrick Magloire, Amit X. Garg, Sandra Ofori, David Conen, Jessica Spence, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, William F. McIntyre, Richard Whitlock, Jeff S. Healey, Shirley Pettit, Flávia K. Borges

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityImpactLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionPerioperativeCohortInternal medicineStroke (engine)CardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) is the most prevalent vascular complication following surgical procedures. Although the revised cardiac risk index (RCRI) is widely used to predict postoperative cardiovascular complications, its predictive accuracy is suboptimal. OBJECTIVES: Considering genetic influences may improve risk prediction. The authors propose integrating polygenic risk scores (PRS) with the RCRI to enhance MINS prediction. Identification of PRS associated with MINS could provide pathophysiological insights. METHODS: This is a case-control study nested within the Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Participants Cohort Evaluation cohort, including patients aged 45 and above who underwent noncardiac surgery. Daily troponin levels were measured preoperatively and on days 1, 2, and 3 postoperatively. PRS was computed for MINS risk factors using publicly available summary statistics. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between each PRS and MINS. PRS discrimination was assessed independently and in combination with RCRI. RESULTS: = 506). The type II diabetes (T2D) PRS (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.00-1.58; P = 0.047) and the HbA1c PRS (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.03-1.54; P = 0.026) were associated with MINS. No other PRS, including those for coronary artery disease, stroke, and lipid biomarkers, showed significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: The T2D PRS and the HbA1c PRS were associated with an increased risk of MINS. The findings may reflect the multifactorial pathophysiology of MINS. Larger genetic studies and trials evaluating perioperative glucose management warrant consideration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC AdvancesSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207