ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2023
Implementing Reporting Standards for Polygenic Risk Scores for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.
Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inherited risk of coronary artery disease: redefining care with imaging and genetics.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Performance of Polygenic Risk Scores for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in theCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of disclosing a polygenic risk score for coronary heart disease on adverse cardiovascular events: 10-year follow-up of the MI-GENES randomized clinical trial.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThere is considerable interest in using polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for assessing risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). A barrier to the clinical use of PRSs is heterogeneity in how PRS studies are reported. In this review, we summarize approaches to establish a uniform reporting framework for PRSs for coronary heart disease (CHD), the most common form of ASCVD. RECENT
findingsReporting standards for PRSs need to be contextualized for disease specific applications. In addition to metrics of predictive performance, reporting standards for PRSs for CHD should include how cases/control were ascertained, degree of adjustment for conventional CHD risk factors, portability to diverse genetic ancestry groups and admixed individuals, and quality control measures for clinical deployment. Such a framework will enable PRSs to be optimized and benchmarked for clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.