ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Performance of Cardiovascular Polygenic Risk Scores in Carotid Stenosis Identification.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Background: Clinically significant carotid stenosis remains a major cause of ischemic stroke (IS), yet prediction of disease progression is limited. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD) have demonstrated associations with atherosclerosis burden and major cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but whether these insights extend to carotid stenosis is unclear. We evaluated the association and discriminative performance of validated PRSs for CAD, PAD, IS, and carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) with carotid stenosis among participants of the Mass General Brigham Biobank (MGBB). Methods: Carotid stenosis was identified in genotyped MGBB participants using validated ICD- and CPT-based phenotyping algorithms. Logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, and 10 ancestry principal components assessed PRS associations. Incremental discrimination was evaluated using changes in Harrell's C-statistic. Results: Compared with 52,636 controls, 670 participants with carotid stenosis were more frequently male (61.5% vs 44.1%), older (70.8 SD 9.0 vs 53.4 SD 17.2 years), and more likely to be European (95.7% vs 84.1%). The IS (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.21-1.41), CAD (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.50-1.75), and PAD (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.54-1.80) PRSs were each associated with carotid stenosis (all p<0.0001), while the cIMT PRS was not (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97-1.13; p=0.28). The PAD PRS demonstrated the greatest improvement in discrimination beyond age, sex, and ancestry (ΔC-statistic 0.017; C-statistic 0.845, 95% CI 0.833-0.856). A fully adjusted model incorporating established CVD risk factors achieved a C-statistic of 0.852 (95% CI 0.841-0.862), with modest further improvement after PAD PRS inclusion (ΔC-statistic 0.008). Individuals in the top 5% of the PAD PRS distribution and top 4% of CAD PRS demonstrated 3-fold greater odds of carotid stenosis. Conclusions: A PAD and CAD PRS may help identify individuals at high likelihood for carotid stenosis, though broad discriminative performance remains limited. These findings support further investigation of CVD PRSs as adjunctive risk stratification tools.
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.