ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
Development and validation of a genetic probability for venous thromboembolism.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. 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.
- RResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Factor V Leiden (FVL) and prothrombin gene mutations (PGMs), as well as recently developed polygenic scores (PGSs), have been consistently associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in European ancestry populations. Objectives: This study aimed to develop an optimized risk-assessment tool combining mutations and PGS for diverse ancestry populations. Methods: The association of VTE risk with FVL/PGM and PGS was tested using multivariable analyses in the UK Biobank. A genetic probability for VTE (GenProb-VTE) combining PGS and FVL/PGM was developed. Its discriminative and reclassification performances over FVL/PGM alone were assessed using observed VTE rate and the continuous net reclassification index, respectively. Results were validated in the Genomic Health Initiative of Endeavor Health, an ancestry-diverse health care system-based biobank. Results: Among 432,831 participants in the UK Biobank, FVL, PGM, and PGS were significantly and independently associated with VTE risk ( Conclusion: GenProb-VTE, an optimized tool combining PGS with FVL/PGM, significantly improves VTE risk assessment compared with FVL/PGM alone in diverse ancestry populations. It provides a novel tool for genetic risk assessment of VTE.
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.