ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Relationship between novel inflammatory markers derived from high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and heart failure: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of novel inflammation markers derived from high-sensitivity C-reactive protein with anemia: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2015-2018.Thrombosis journal · 2026Article
- Linking high-sensitivity CRP levels to cardiac dysfunction in patients with psoriasis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveHigh-sensitivity C-reactive protein to HDL-C ratio (HCHR) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to lymphocyte count ratio (HCLR) are two novel inflammatory indicators, and heart failure (HF) is linked to chronic inflammation. This study sought to evaluate the link between HCHR, HCLR, and HF.
methodsWe carried out a cross-sectional investigation using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2015-2018). We used multivariate logistic regression to determine the association between HCHR, HCLR, and HF, followed by smoothed curve fitting and threshold effect analysis, as well as subgroup analyses of the underlying demographic variables to investigate potential impacts. The receiver operating characteristic curves were employed to examine the correlation between each index and HF.
resultsThis study included 8751 subjects, and multivariate logistic regression after Ln conversion for HCHR and HCLR showed that subjects in the highest tertile of Ln(HCHR) had a significantly higher risk of 45% than those in the lowest tertile in the fully adjusted model 3 (OR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.02-2.07; P for trend = 0.0269), whereas subjects in the highest tertile of Ln(HCLR) had a significantly higher risk of 52% (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.07-2.17; P for trend = 0.0184) than those in the lowest tertile. Ln(HCHR) and HF exhibited a nonlinear relationship, with an inflection point of -2.71 and a log-likelihood ratio of 0.024. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant interactions between Ln(HCHR), Ln(HCLR), and specific subgroups (all P for interactions > 0.05). The ROC curve indicated that Ln(HCLR) had the greatest diagnostic efficacy for HF (AUC: 0.638, 95% CI 0.607-0.669), succeeded by Ln(HCHR) (AUC: 0.620, 95% CI 0.589-0.652).
conclusionOur findings indicate that Ln(HCHR) and Ln(HCLR) are positively linked with the prevalence of HF among US adults. Specifically, Ln(HCHR) levels demonstrated a nonlinear correlation with HF, featuring an inflection point at -2.71.
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.