ArticlePulmonary circulation2025
Circulating Pin1 Levels in Patients With Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: A Case-Control Study.
Article in Pulmonary circulation, 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.
- Circulating Pin1 Levels in Patients With Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: A Case-Control Study.Pulmonary circulation · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a rare but severe complication of pulmonary embolism (PE), yet its underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. Peptidyl-prolyl cis/trans isomerase (Pin1), a regulatory enzyme involved in thrombosis, inflammation, and vascular remodeling, may contribute to pulmonary vascular disease. We investigated whether circulating Pin1 levels are associated with the risk of CTEPH and its severity. In this case-control study, we measured circulating Pin1 levels by ELISA and compared them across 329 patients with CTEPH, 350 patients after acute PE, and 350 healthy individuals. Associations between Pin1 levels and clinical parameters were assessed with multivariable regression, stratified by sex. Overall, circulating Pin1 levels did not differ between patients with CTEPH, patients after acute PE, and healthy individuals. However, male patients with CTEPH had higher Pin1 levels than the two control groups, while female patients with CTEPH had slightly lower levels than female healthy individuals. Elevated Pin1 levels were associated with improved hemodynamics and exercise capacity, lower N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, and increased probability of CTEPH in men. Among healthy individuals, circulating Pin1 levels varied based on age, sex, and history of cancer. In conclusion, circulating Pin1 did not distinguish between patients with CTEPH, acute PE or healthy individuals. Nonetheless, our results suggest a possible sex-specific association between circulating Pin1 levels and CTEPH. Although Pin1 is unlikely to serve as a standalone biomarker, it may reflect underlying sex-specific pathological mechanisms, and further investigation on its utility within multimodal strategies for early risk stratification of CTEPH is warranted.
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.