ArticlePloS one2025
Development and validation of a risk prediction algorithm for high-risk populations combining genetic and conventional risk factors of cardiovascular disease.
Article in PloS one, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo develop a model for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, combining polygenic risk score (PRS) with traditional risk factors while assessing the added value of PRS in two cohorts of biobank participants.
methodsData of 128 209 participants from the Estonian Biobank recruited between 2002-2017 and 2018-2022 without prevalent cardiovascular disease, was included. Hazard ratios (HR) for polygenic risk versus conventional risk factors were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models, cumulative incidence was assessed with Aalen-Johansen curves. Predictive performance was tested using a split-sample approach and competing risk modelling. Age at CVD event served as the outcome, and the impact of the PRS was evaluated by age group (25-59 vs. 60+), sex, and recruitment period, using HRs, Harrell's C-index, and net reclassification indices (NRI).
resultsThe estimated HR per one standard deviation (SD) of PRS ranged from 1.1, 95% CI 1.06-1.15 (age 60 + , earlier cohort) to 1.36, 95% CI 1.24-1.49 (men 25-59, later cohort). Adding PRS to the conventional risk factors in the age group 25-59 increased the C-statistic by 0.028 (p < 0.0001) for men. In the age group 60 + , the increase was 0.016 (p = 0.0002) across all. In the independent validation set, the continuous NRI was 19.1% (95% CI 13.3%-24.9%) in the 25-59 group and 13.9% (95% CI 8.1%-19.6%) in the 60 + group.
conclusionsIn a high-risk population, PRS is a strong independent risk factor for CVD and should be considered in routine risk assessment, starting at a relatively young age.
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.