Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40176039›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular diabetology2025

Improved prediction and risk stratification of major adverse cardiovascular events using an explainable machine learning approach combining plasma biomarkers and traditional risk factors.

Xi-Ru Zhang, Wen-Fang Zhong, Rui-Yan Liu, Jie-Lin Huang, Jing-Xiang Fu, Jian Gao, Pei-Dong Zhang, Dan Liu, Zhi-Hao Li, Yan He and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Sphingomyelin as a key negative mediator in atrial fibrillation via lipid profiling analysis and functional identification.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

12 authors.

Xi-Ru ZhangMicrobiome Medicine Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China.
Wen-Fang ZhongDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Rui-Yan LiuDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Jie-Lin HuangMicrobiome Medicine Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China.
Jing-Xiang FuMicrobiome Medicine Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China.
Jian GaoMicrobiome Medicine Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China.
Pei-Dong ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Dan LiuDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Zhi-Hao LiDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Yan HeMicrobiome Medicine Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China.
Hongwei ZhouMicrobiome Medicine Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China. biodegradation@gmail.com.
Zhuang LiMicrobiome Medicine Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China. jiandandjx@smu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-5039-8617

Funding

China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2023M731537National Key Research and Development Program of China 2022YFA0806400National Natural Science Foundation of China 81925026National Natural Science Foundation of China 82272391National Natural Science Foundation of China 82304211National Natural Science Foundation of China 82404334
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Traditional risk models, primarily based on established risk factors, often lack the precision needed to accurately predict new-onset major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This study aimed to improve prediction and risk stratification by integrating traditional risk factors with biochemical and metabolomic biomarkers.

methodsWe analyzed data from 229,352 participants in the UK Biobank (median age 58.0 years; 45.4% male) who were free of baseline MACE. Biomarker selection was conducted using area under the curve (AUC), minimal joint mutual information maximization (JMIM), and correlation analyses, while Cox proportional hazards models were employed to evaluate the predictive performance of combined traditional risk factors and biomarkers. Optimal binary thresholds were determined utilizing CatBoost and SHAP, leading to the calculation of a Biomarker Risk Score (BRS) for each participant. Multivariable Cox models were conducted to assess the associations of each concerned biomarker and BRS with new-onset endpoints.

resultsThe combination of PANEL + All Biochemistry + Cor0.95 of Nonov Met predictors demonstrated significantly improved discriminative performance compared to traditional models, such as Age + Sex and ASCVD, across all endpoints. Although the prediction for hemorrhagic stroke was suboptimal (C-index = 0.699), C-index values for other outcomes surpassed 0.75, with the highest value (0.822) recorded for CVD-related mortality. Key predictors of new-onset MACE included cystatin C, HbA1c, GlycA, and GGT, while IGF-1 and DHA exhibited potential protective effects. The BRS stratified individuals into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, with the strongest effect observed for CVD death, where the high-risk group had a relative risk of 2.76 (95% CI 2.48-3.07) compared to the low-risk group.

conclusionIntegrating traditional risk factors and biomarkers improves prediction and risk stratification of new-onset MACE. The BRS shows promise as a tool for identifying high-risk individuals, with the potential to support personalized CVD prevention and management strategies.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDecision Support TechniquesMachine LearningMetabolomicsAgedBiomarkersFemaleHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRisk AssessmentTime FactorsUnited KingdomBiomarkersBinary thresholdBiomarker risk scoreCardiovascular researchMajor adverse cardiovascular eventsRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID40176039
PMCPMC11966882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.