ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Circulating excitation-contraction coupling proteins and incident cardiovascular outcomes: associations and incremental predictive performance in the UK Biobank.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Excitation-contraction coupling is central to cardiovascular physiology, but the prospective relevance of circulating proteins involved in this pathway remains uncertain. Methods: We evaluated a prespecified seven-protein excitation-contraction coupling panel (EC7: NEXN, SLMAP, ITPR1, CACNB1, HRC, RYR1, and CACNA1C) in the UK Biobank proteomics cohort in relation to incident stroke, heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and angina recorded during the available observation period. Outcome-specific logistic-regression models estimated odds ratios per 1-standard-deviation higher relative protein level after adjustment for demographic and clinical factors, with false-discovery-rate correction across 28 primary tests. Predictive analyses used locked training/test partitions, screening of 13 candidate algorithms, nested cross-validation, frozen calibration and thresholds, and comparisons with clinical features and five established cardiovascular proteins. Results: Among 52,995 participants in the analysis source proteomics cohort, 39,691 had complete EC7 measurements. Higher ITPR1 (odds ratio, 1.088; 95% confidence interval, 1.033-1.146; q = 0.022) and HRC (odds ratio, 1.246; 95% confidence interval, 1.191-1.305; q < 0.001) were associated with incident heart failure; no other primary association survived correction. Logistic regression was selected for all outcomes. Adding EC7 proteins to clinical features did not improve locked-test predictive performance after multiplicity correction; for heart failure, changes were +0.0054 in ROC-AUC (q = 0.112) and +0.0084 in average precision (q = 0.217). Established comparator proteins consistently outperformed EC7 in biomarker-only comparisons. Discussion: Circulating excitation-contraction coupling proteins showed outcome-specific associations, particularly with heart failure, but limited incremental predictive performance. These findings support further mechanistic investigation and validation in independent cohorts.
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.