ReviewReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
The Application of Mendelian Randomization in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction: Current Status and Future Prospects.
Review in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of spermidine's effect on coronary heart disease risk using bidirectional Mendelian randomization and LC-MS/MS.Hereditas · 2025Article
- Article
- OptiStack classifier: optimized stacking framework with ensemble feature engineering for enhanced cardiovascular risk prediction.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD), a leading cause of death and disability worldwide, and is associated with a wide range of risk factors, and genetically associated conditions. While many CVDs are preventable and early detection alongside treatment can significantly mitigate complication risks, current prediction models for CVDs need enhancements for better accuracy. Mendelian randomization (MR) offers a novel approach for estimating the causal relationship between exposure and outcome by using genetic variation in quasi-experimental data. This method minimizes the impact of confounding variables by leveraging the random allocation of genes during gamete formation, thereby facilitating the integration of new predictors into risk prediction models to refine the accuracy of prediction. In this review, we delve into the theory behind MR, as well as the strengths, applications, and limitations behind this emerging technology. A particular focus will be placed on MR application to CVD, and integration into CVD prediction frameworks. We conclude by discussing the inclusion of various populations and by offering insights into potential areas for future research and refinement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.