ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2027
Heterogeneity in proteomic risk factors for coronary heart disease by sex and menopause status.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2027. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, yet current prediction tools do not fully capture sex differences in risk. Menopause further modifies women's risk of CHD, but underlying molecular mechanisms are not well understood. Proteomic profiling may provide new insights into these mechanisms. Methods: We analyzed 4,877 SomaScan™-based plasma proteins in 10,034 Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) participants. Using linear regression, we identified sex- and menopause-related differences in circulating protein concentrations. We performed pathway enrichment analyses to capture underlying biological mechanisms. To evaluate the associations between proteins and incident CHD and differences by sex or menopause status, we applied Cox regression. Finally, we used LASSO regression to identify proteins that improve CHD risk prediction beyond an established clinical model. Results: We observed significant differences in circulating proteins by sex and menopausal status, including early changes during the menopausal transition. We found protein associations with incident CHD differed markedly by sex and menopausal stage: eight proteins were associated with CHD in men, compared with 54 in women, and six and 17 proteins in peri‑ and postmenopausal women, respectively. In risk prediction analyses, adding sex-specific protein panels improved CHD prediction (ΔC-statistic=0.05 in men and 0.03 in women), with similar improvement across menopausal stages. Conclusions: Proteomic profiles underlying CHD risk differ substantially by sex and menopausal stage. These findings suggest potential biological heterogeneity in CHD and support the study of sex- and menopause-related differences in underlying mechanisms.
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.