MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412008660 · doi:10.1161/circgen.124.004937

Importance of Clinical, Laboratory, and Genetic Risk Factors for Incident CAD

2025· article· en· W4412008660 on OpenAlexaff
Romit Bhattacharya, Christopher Marnell, So Mi Jemma Cho, Aniruddh P. Patel, Yunfeng Ruan, Satoshi Koyama, Amanda Jowell, Mark Trinder, Sara Haidermota, Kim Lannery, Michael C. Honigberg, Seyedeh M. Zekevat, Ida Surakka, Gina M. Peloso, Pradeep Natarajan

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Genomic and Precision Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCRFSMyocardial infarctionDyslipidemiaCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyDiabetes mellitusFamilial hypercholesterolemiaDiseaseCholesterolEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prior work suggests modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs) account for 80% to 90% of the risk for incident myocardial infarction. The contributions of genetic and other novel CRFs have not been simultaneously assessed in contemporary data sets. METHODS: In the United Kingdom Biobank, CRFs were identified and Cox proportional hazards models with traditional CRFs (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, waist-to-hip ratio, diet, exercise, alcohol, and socioeconomic deprivation) and contemporary/genetic CRFs (Lp(a) [lipoprotein(a)], hsCRP [high-sensitivity C-reactive protein], familial hypercholesterolemia variants, and polygenic risk score for coronary artery disease) were constructed for coronary artery disease. Coronary artery disease was defined as a first-time myocardial infarction diagnosis or coronary revascularization. R 2 was calculated for each model, and the percent contribution of each individual CRF was calculated by the R 2 percent decrease after its removal. RESULTS: Among 299 707 individuals, the mean (SD) age was 56.2 (8.1) years, and 166 533 (55.6%) were women. Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 11.0 (9.6–12.5) years, 17 409 (5.8%) of participants developed myocardial infarction. R 2 increased from the base model (R 2 , 0.021 [0.020–0.022]), to the clinical model (R 2 , 0.045 [0.043–0.046]), to the contemporary/genetic model (R 2 , 0.053 [0.052–0.055]). The most powerful individual CRFs were hypertension (R 2 loss, 15.2% [14.5–17.1]) and polygenic risk score for coronary artery disease (R 2 loss, 12.4% [10.8–13.3]), followed by dyslipidemia (R 2 loss, 3.4% [2.6–3.5]), diabetes (R 2 loss, 2.2% [1.5–2.0]), hsCRP (R 2 loss, 1.8% [1.5–2.0]), and Lp(a) (R 2 loss, 1.5% [1.2–1.8]). CONCLUSIONS: Novel CRFs like polygenic risk score for coronary artery disease, hsCRP, and Lp(a) have similar importance, comparable to traditional CRFs such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, for incident myocardial infarction, highlighting important identifiable residual risk factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Genomic and Precision MedicineSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207