Genetic Variation in LPA, Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery, and Familial Risk of Aortic Valve Microcalcification.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Genetic variants at the LPA locus are associated with both calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS) and coronary artery disease (CAD). Whether these variants are associated with CAVS in patients with CAD vs those without CAD is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To study the associations of LPA variants with CAVS in a cohort of patients undergoing heart surgery and LPA with CAVS in patients with CAD vs those without CAD and to determine whether first-degree relatives of patients with CAVS and high lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels showed evidence of aortic valve microcalcification. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This genetic association study included patients undergoing cardiac surgery from the Genome-Wide Association Study on Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis in Quebec (QUEBEC-CAVS) study and patients with CAD, patients without CAD, and control participants from 6 genetic association studies: the UK Biobank, the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk, and Genetic Epidemiology Research on Aging (GERA) studies and 3 French cohorts. In addition, a family study included first-degree relatives of patients with CAVS. Data were collected from January 1993 to September 2018, and analysis was completed from September 2017 to September 2018. EXPOSURES: Case-control studies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Presence of CAVS according to a weighted genetic risk score based on 3 common Lp(a)-raising variants and aortic valve microcalcification, defined as the mean tissue to background ratio of 1.25 or more, measured by fluorine 18-labeled sodium fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography. RESULTS: This study included 1009 individuals undergoing cardiac surgery and 1017 control participants in the QUEBEC-CAVS cohort; 3258 individuals with CAVS and CAD, 41 100 controls with CAD, 2069 individuals with CAVS without CAD, and 380 075 control participants without CAD in the UK Biobank, EPIC-Norfolk, and GERA studies and 3 French cohorts combined; and 33 first-degree relatives of 17 patients with CAVS and high Lp(a) levels (≥60 mg/dL) and 23 control participants with normal Lp(a) levels (<60 mg/dL). In the QUEBEC-CAVS study, each SD increase of the genetic risk score was associated with a higher risk of CAVS (odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.10-1.66]; P = .003). Each SD increase of the genetic risk score was associated with a higher risk of CAVS in patients with CAD (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.20-1.42]; P < .001) and without CAD (OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.14-1.55]; P < .001). The percentage of individuals with a tissue to background ratio of 1.25 or more or CAVS was higher in first-degree relatives of patients with CAVS and high Lp(a) (16 of 33 [49%]) than control participants (3 of 23 [13%]; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, a genetically elevated Lp(a) level was associated with CAVS independently of the presence of CAD. These findings support further research on the potential usefulness of Lp(a) cascade screening in CAVS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".