ArticleJournal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis2024
Polygenic Risk Scores in Predicting Coronary Artery Disease in Symptomatic Patients. A Validation Study.
Article in Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of a polygenic risk score to enhance early detection of coronary atherosclerosis.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Unraveling the genetic blueprint of coronary artery disease: The role of polygenic risk scores in risk prediction.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Health improvements by understanding residual risk in coronary artery disease and new targets for prevention/treatment: rationale and research protocol of the HURRICANE project.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Assessment Timings of Polygenic Risk Score for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimClinical risk scores for coronary artery disease (CAD) are used in clinical practice to select patients for diagnostic testing and therapy. Several studies have proposed that polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can improve the prediction of CAD, but the scores need to be validated in clinical populations with accurately characterized phenotypes. We assessed the predictive power of the three most promising PRSs for the prediction of coronary atherosclerosis and obstructive CAD.
methodsThis study was conducted on 943 symptomatic patients with suspected CAD for whom the phenotype was accurately characterized using anatomic and functional imaging. Previously published genome-wide polygenic scores were generated to compare a genetic model based on PRSs with a model based on clinical data. The test and PRS cohorts were predominantly Caucasian of northern European ancestry.
resultsAll three PRSs predicted coronary atherosclerosis and obstructive CAD statistically significantly. The predictive accuracy of the models combining clinical data and different PRSs varied between 0.778 and 0.805 in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), being close to the model including only clinical variables (AUROC 0.769). The difference between the clinical model and combined clinical + PRS model was not significant for PRS1 (p=0.627) and PRS3 (p=0.061). Only PRS2 slightly improved the predictive power of the model (p=0.04). The likelihood ratios showed the very weak diagnostic power of all PRSs.
conclusionThe addition of PRSs to conventional risk factors did not clinically significantly improve the predictive accuracy for either coronary atherosclerosis or obstructive CAD, showing that current PRSs are not justified for routine clinical use in CAD.
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.