MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127912550 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf784.415

Assessment of 352 plasma biomarkers for predicting ischaemic stroke risk in atrial fibrillation patients without anticoagulation - A proteomic profiling study

2025· article· en· W7127912550 on OpenAlexaff
Ziad Hijazi, N Eriksson, A P Benz, J W Eikelboom, Peter Kastner, J. Oldgren, André Ziegler, Agneta Siegbahn, Lars Wallentin

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Hazard ratioIschaemic strokeProportional hazards modelInterquartile rangeBiomarkerMaceRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for ischaemic stroke. Recent advancements in proteomics enable high-throughput screening of proteins using small plasma samples. However, studies on biomarkers in AF patients without oral anticoagulation are lacking. Purpose This proteomics screening study aims to identify plasma biomarkers associated with ischaemic stroke risk in AF patients without oral anticoagulation, thereby improving the mechanistic understanding of this complication. Methods This case-cohort design study included 166 cases with ischaemic stroke and a random sample of 1,437 controls from patients in the ACTIVE-A and AVERROES trials randomized to aspirin, with baseline plasma samples available. All ischaemic stroke outcomes were independently adjudicated. A total of 352 unique biomarkers were measured with OLINK Target 96 panels using proximity extension assay (CVDII, CVDIII, inflammation, and oncology), along with conventional and prototype immunoassays (Roche Diagnostics). The association between biomarkers and outcomes was evaluated by Random Survival Forest analysis, including Boruta and Cox models adjusted for clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and kidney function. Results Out of the 352 biomarkers, the top 15 risk predictors for ischaemic stroke in AF according to Random Survival Forest are shown in the Figure. The corresponding Boruta and Cox regression model p-values and hazard ratios (95% CI) for an interquartile difference validated 6 of these biomarkers (Table). Conclusions In AF patients not receiving oral anticoagulation, out of 352 plasma biomarkers, the six biomarkers most strongly associated with subsequent ischaemic stroke represent cardiac dysfunction/injury (NT-proBNP and hs-troponin T), atrial stress (BMP10), angiogenesis (CYR61), and myocardial remodelling/fibrosis (PRELP and WISP-1). The latter three proteins emerged as novel markers associated with ischaemic stroke in AF.Figure Table

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207