Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30616610›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2019

NMR-based metabolomics identifies patients at high risk of death within two years after acute myocardial infarction in the AMI-Florence II cohort.

Alessia Vignoli, Leonardo Tenori, Betti Giusti, Panteleimon G Takis, Serafina Valente, Nazario Carrabba, Daniela Balzi, Alessandro Barchielli, Niccolò Marchionni, Gian Franco Gensini and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Recent Trends in Metabolomics by NMR Spectroscopy.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Mapping ofMagnetic resonance in chemistry : MRC · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Progress in the Metabolomics of Acute Coronary Syndrome.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Alessia VignoliMagnetic Resonance Center (CERM), University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.
Leonardo TenoriMagnetic Resonance Center (CERM), University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.
Betti GiustiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. betti.giusti@unifi.it.ORCID 0000-0002-8708-9444
Panteleimon G TakisGiotto Biotech S.r.l, Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy.
Serafina ValenteCareggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Nazario CarrabbaCareggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Daniela BalziUnit of Epidemiology, ASL 10, Florence, Italy.
Alessandro BarchielliUnit of Epidemiology, ASL 10, Florence, Italy.
Niccolò MarchionniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Gian Franco GensiniCentro Studi Medicina Avanzata (CESMAV), Florence, Italy.
Rossella MarcucciDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Claudio LuchinatMagnetic Resonance Center (CERM), University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.
Anna Maria GoriDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk stratification and management of acute myocardial infarction patients continue to be challenging despite considerable efforts made in the last decades by many clinicians and researchers. The aim of this study was to investigate the metabolomic fingerprint of acute myocardial infarction using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy on patient serum samples and to evaluate the possible role of metabolomics in the prognostic stratification of acute myocardial infarction patients.

methodsIn total, 978 acute myocardial infarction patients were enrolled in this study; of these, 146 died and 832 survived during 2 years of follow-up after the acute myocardial infarction. Serum samples were analyzed via high-resolution

resultsIn the training set, metabolomics showed significant differential clustering of the two outcomes cohorts. A prognostic risk model predicted death with 76.9% sensitivity, 79.5% specificity, and 78.2% accuracy, and an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.859. These results were reproduced in the validation set, obtaining 72.6% sensitivity, 72.6% specificity, and 72.6% accuracy. Cox models were used to compare the known prognostic factors (for example, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, age, sex, Killip class) with the metabolomic random forest risk score. In the univariate analysis, many prognostic factors were statistically associated with the outcomes; among them, the random forest score calculated from the nuclear magnetic resonance data showed a statistically relevant hazard ratio of 6.45 (p = 2.16×10

conclusionsFor the first time, metabolomic profiling technologies were used to discriminate between patients with different outcomes after an acute myocardial infarction. These technologies seem to be a valid and accurate addition to standard stratification based on clinical and biohumoral parameters.

Indexed as

AgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMaleMetabolomicsMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsROC CurveAcute myocardial infarctionBiomarkerMetabolomicsNuclear magnetic resonancePrecision medicinePrognosisSerum

Identifiers

PMID30616610
PMCPMC6323789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.