ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
From Rare Genetic Variants to Polygenic Risk: Understanding the Genetic Basis of Cardiomyopathies.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Geographical and Ethnic Heterogeneity in Genetic Dilated Cardiomyopathies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Epigenetics, Modifiers, and Molecular Noise: Rethinking Pathophysiology in Dilated and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Revisiting the Genetics of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: From Sarcomeres to Polygenic Modulation and Clinical Translation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- From polygenic risk to digital twins: the future of personalised cardiovascular medicine.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Are clinical trajectories in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy mutation-specific? A systematic review and meta-analysis ofFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiomyopathies represent a heterogeneous group of myocardial disorders, traditionally classified by phenotype into hypertrophic, dilated, and arrhythmogenic. Historically, these conditions have been attributed to high-penetrance rare variants in key structural genes, consistent with a classical Mendelian pattern of inheritance. However, emerging evidence suggests that this model does not fully capture the full spectrum and complexity of disease expression. Many patients do not harbor identifiable pathogenic variants, while others carrying well-known disease-causing variants remain unaffected. This highlights the role of incomplete penetrance, likely modulated by additional genetic modifiers. Recent advances in genomics have revealed a broader view of the genetic basis of cardiomyopathies, introducing new players such as common genetic variants identified as risk alleles, as well as intermediate-effect variants. This continuum of genetic risk, reflecting an overall genetic influence, interacts further with environmental and lifestyle factors, likely contributing together to the observed variability in clinical presentation. This model offers a more realistic framework for understanding genetic inheritance and helps provide a clearer picture of disease expression and penetrance. This review explores the evolving genetic architecture of cardiomyopathies, spanning from a monogenic foundation to intermediate-risk variants and complex polygenic contribution. Recognizing this continuum is essential for enhancing diagnostic accuracy, guiding family screening strategies, and enabling personalized patient management.
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.