MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415097795 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2025.1610395

The role of elevated lipoprotein(a) in aortic valve disease: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4415097795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
PP Wambua, Maureen Wahinya, Zahid Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAortic valveAortic valve replacementHemodynamicsAortic valve stenosisAortic aneurysm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS) is the most prevalent valvular heart disease and a growing global health concern. Aortic sclerosis (ASc) and aortic stenosis (AS) represent a continuum of progressive disease characterized by leaflet thickening, inflammation, lipid deposition, and calcification. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], with its pro-atherogenic, pro-inflammatory, and pro-calcific properties, has emerged as a key contributor to this process. While its role in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is well established, the relationship between Lp(a) and CAVS has been demonstrated in several key studies; however, the available evidence remains limited in volume, and important gaps persist in understanding mechanisms, risk stratification, and therapeutic implications. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Medline, ResearchGate, Embase, and Google Scholar in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included observational designs (cross-sectional, cohort, case-control) and randomized trials evaluating associations between Lp(a) levels, genetic variants, and CAVS. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising six case-control, six cohort, and six cross-sectional studies with a total of 153,192 participants. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Elevated Lp(a) levels were consistently associated with an increased risk of AS and aortic valve calcification (AVC), with a dose-dependent effect. The risk was highest at levels ≥50 mg/dl, though some evidence supported risk at ≥30 mg/dl. Genetic analyses identified rs10455872 as a significant risk allele, while rs3798220 showed inconsistent associations. Multi-ethnic cohorts highlighted racial variability: Afro-Caribbean individuals had higher baseline Lp(a) levels but lower AVC prevalence than Caucasians. Conclusion: Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for CAVS, influenced by both concentration and genetic variation. Early screening and emerging Lp(a)-lowering therapies, including antisense oligonucleotides, small interfering RNA, and PCSK9 inhibitors, may help mitigate disease progression. Further randomized trials are needed to determine whether Lp(a) reduction translates into cardiovascular and valvular benefit. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024533835, PROSPERO CRD42024533835.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207