ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
AORTA Gene: Polygenic prediction improves detection of thoracic aortic aneurysm.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling cellular and molecular aspects of ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections.Basic research in cardiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Thoracic aortic disease is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, and aortic diameter is a heritable contributor to risk. Could a polygenic prediction of ascending aortic diameter improve detection of aortic aneurysm? Methods: Deep learning was used to measure ascending thoracic aortic diameter in 49,939 UK Biobank participants. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) was conducted in 39,524 participants and leveraged to build a 1.1 million-variant polygenic score with Results: In each test set, the AORTA Gene model explained more of the variance in thoracic aortic diameter compared to clinical factors alone: 39.9% (95% CI 37.8-42.0%) vs 29.2% (95% CI 27.1-31.4%) in UK Biobank, 36.5% (95% CI 34.4-38.5%) vs 32.5% (95% CI 30.4-34.5%) in MGB, 41.8% (95% CI 37.7-45.9%) vs 33.0% (95% CI 28.9-37.2%) in FHS, and 34.9% (95% CI 28.8-41.0%) vs 28.9% (95% CI 22.9-35.0%) in Conclusions: Genetic information improved estimation of thoracic aortic diameter when added to clinical risk factors. Larger and more diverse cohorts will be needed to develop more powerful and equitable scores.
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.