Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32808014›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal2020

Improved cardiovascular risk prediction using targeted plasma proteomics in primary prevention.

Renate M Hoogeveen, João P Belo Pereira, Nick S Nurmohamed, Veronica Zampoleri, Michiel J Bom, Andrea Baragetti, S Matthijs Boekholdt, Paul Knaapen, Kay-Tee Khaw, Nicholas J Wareham and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Renate M HoogeveenDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
João P Belo PereiraDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nick S NurmohamedDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Veronica ZampoleriDepartment of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Milan, Via Balzaretti 9, 20133 Milan, Italy.
Michiel J BomDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Andrea BaragettiDepartment of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Milan, Via Balzaretti 9, 20133 Milan, Italy.
S Matthijs BoekholdtDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paul KnaapenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kay-Tee KhawDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, Cambridge, UK.
Nicholas J WarehamMedical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Albert K GroenDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alberico L CatapanoDepartment of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Milan, Via Balzaretti 9, 20133 Milan, Italy.
Wolfgang KoenigKlinik für Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Evgeni LevinDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Erik S G StroesDepartment of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversität Ulm · DE

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14136Medical Research Council G0401527Medical Research Council G1000143Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/1Medical Research Council MR/N003284/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsIn the era of personalized medicine, it is of utmost importance to be able to identify subjects at the highest cardiovascular (CV) risk. To date, single biomarkers have failed to markedly improve the estimation of CV risk. Using novel technology, simultaneous assessment of large numbers of biomarkers may hold promise to improve prediction. In the present study, we compared a protein-based risk model with a model using traditional risk factors in predicting CV events in the primary prevention setting of the European Prospective Investigation (EPIC)-Norfolk study, followed by validation in the Progressione della Lesione Intimale Carotidea (PLIC) cohort. METHODS AND

resultsUsing the proximity extension assay, 368 proteins were measured in a nested case-control sample of 822 individuals from the EPIC-Norfolk prospective cohort study and 702 individuals from the PLIC cohort. Using tree-based ensemble and boosting methods, we constructed a protein-based prediction model, an optimized clinical risk model, and a model combining both. In the derivation cohort (EPIC-Norfolk), we defined a panel of 50 proteins, which outperformed the clinical risk model in the prediction of myocardial infarction [area under the curve (AUC) 0.754 vs. 0.730; P < 0.001] during a median follow-up of 20 years. The clinically more relevant prediction of events occurring within 3 years showed an AUC of 0.732 using the clinical risk model and an AUC of 0.803 for the protein model (P < 0.001). The predictive value of the protein panel was confirmed to be superior to the clinical risk model in the validation cohort (AUC 0.705 vs. 0.609; P < 0.001).

conclusionIn a primary prevention setting, a proteome-based model outperforms a model comprising clinical risk factors in predicting the risk of CV events. Validation in a large prospective primary prevention cohort is required to address the value for future clinical implementation in CV prevention.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesProteomicsHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansPrimary PreventionProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCardiovascular event riskClinical risk scoreMachine learningPredictionProteomicsTargeted proteomics

Identifiers

PMID32808014
PMCPMC7672529
OpenAlexW3066114734

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.