MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412202971 · doi:10.3390/biom15070991

Growth Differentiation Factor 15 Predicts Cardiovascular Events in Peripheral Artery Disease

2025· article· en· W4412202971 on OpenAlexafffund
Ben Li, Farah Shaikh, Houssam Younes, Batool Abuhalimeh, Abdelrahman Zamzam, Rawand Abdin, Mohammad Qadura

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomolecules · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGDF15 and Related Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersUniversity of TorontoBlair Foundation
KeywordsMedicineMaceInternal medicineGDF15Myocardial infarctionCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseConventional PCI

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with an elevated risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Despite this, few reliable biomarkers exist to identify patients at heightened risk of MACE. Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15), a stress-responsive cytokine implicated in inflammation, atherosclerosis, and thrombosis, has been broadly studied in cardiovascular disease but remains underexplored in PAD. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic utility of GDF15 for predicting 2-year MACE in PAD patients using explainable statistical and machine learning approaches. We conducted a prospective analysis of 1192 individuals (454 with PAD and 738 without PAD). At study entry, patient plasma GDF15 concentrations were measured using a validated multiplex immunoassay. The cohort was followed for two years to monitor the occurrence of MACE, defined as stroke, myocardial infarction, or death. Baseline GDF15 levels were compared between PAD and non-PAD participants using the Mann–Whitney U test. A machine learning model based on extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) was trained to predict 2-year MACE using 10-fold cross-validation, incorporating GDF15 and clinical variables including age, sex, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack), smoking history, and cardioprotective medication use. The model’s primary evaluation metric was the F1 score, a validated measurement of the harmonic mean of the precision and recall values of the prediction model. Secondary model performance metrics included precision, recall, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-). A prediction probability histogram and Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) analysis were used to assess model discrimination and interpretability. The mean participant age was 70 ± SD 11 years, with 32% (n = 386) female representation. Median plasma GDF15 levels were significantly higher in PAD patients compared to the levels in non-PAD patients (1.29 [IQR 0.77–2.22] vs. 0.99 [IQR 0.61–1.63] pg/mL; p < 0.001). During the 2-year follow-up period, 219 individuals (18.4%) experienced MACE. The XGBoost model demonstrated strong predictive performance for 2-year MACE (F1 score = 0.83; precision = 82.0%; recall = 83.7%; LR+ = 1.88; LR− = 0.83). The prediction histogram revealed distinct stratification between those who did vs. did not experience 2-year MACE. SHAP analysis identified GDF15 as the most influential predictive feature, surpassing traditional clinical predictors such as age, cardiovascular history, and smoking status. This study highlights GDF15 as a strong prognostic biomarker for 2-year MACE in patients with PAD. When combined with clinical variables in an interpretable machine learning model, GDF15 supports the early identification of patients at high risk for systemic cardiovascular events, facilitating personalized treatment strategies including multidisciplinary specialist referrals and aggressive cardiovascular risk reduction therapy. This biomarker-guided approach offers a promising pathway for improving cardiovascular outcomes in the PAD population through precision risk stratification.

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)0.000
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomoleculesSame topicGDF15 and Related BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207