ArticleCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine2025
Evaluation of a Machine Learning-Guided Strategy for Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Screening in Health Systems.
Article in Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of Severe Structural Heart Disease Using an AI-Enhanced Portable 1-Lead ECG: The ACCESS-SHD Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-enhanced Electrocardiography for Heart Failure Screening and Risk Stratification.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Novel Method for Predicting Lp(a) From Genomic Testing Identifies ASCVD Risk Across a Diverse Cohort.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular pharmacotherapy: applications and perspectives.European heart journal · 2025Review
- Many Journeys Originating at the Same Source to Arrive at Solutions to the Common Problem of High Lipoprotein(a).Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile universal screening for Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is increasingly recommended, <0.5% of patients undergo Lp(a) testing. Here, we assessed the feasibility of deploying Algorithmic Risk Inspection for Screening Elevated Lp(a) (ARISE), a validated machine learning tool, to health system electronic health records to increase the yield of Lp(a) testing.
methodsWe randomly sampled 100 000 patients from the Yale-New Haven Health System to evaluate the feasibility of ARISE deployment. We also evaluated Lp(a)-tested populations in the Yale-New Haven Health System (n=7981) and the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (n=10 635) to assess the association of ARISE score with elevated Lp(a). To compare the representativeness of the Lp(a)-tested population, we included 456 815 participants from the UK Biobank and 23 280 from 3 US-based cohorts of Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities, Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults, and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.
resultsAmong 100 000 randomly selected Yale-New Haven Health System patients, 413 (0.4%) had undergone Lp(a) measurement. ARISE score could be computed for 31 586 patients based on existing data, identifying 2376 (7.5%) patients with a high probability of elevated Lp(a). A positive ARISE score was associated with significantly higher odds of elevated Lp(a) in the Yale-New Haven Health System (odds ratio, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.65-2.12]) and the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (odds ratio, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.24-1.60]). The Lp(a)-tested population significantly differed from other study cohorts in terms of ARISE features.
conclusionsWe demonstrate the feasibility of deployment of ARISE in US health systems to define the risk of elevated Lp(a), enabling a high-yield testing strategy. We also confirm the markedly low adoption of Lp(a) testing, which is also being restricted to a highly selected population.
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.