ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2025
Introducing Two Novel Indices for Evaluating Coronary Artery Stenosis: Athero-Inflammatory Index and Athero-Inflammatory Glucose Index.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe investigated the association of two novel indices, the athero-inflammatory (AI) index and athero-inflammatory glucose (AIG) index, with coronary artery stenosis (CAS).
methodsIn this case-control study, the cases were grouped as angiography (+) and angiography (-) according to the angiographic results. The control group comprised subjects who attended clinics for routine check-ups or pre-employment medical assessments. The AI index and AIG index were compared between the groups using ANOVA. Binary logistic regression (LR) was performed to find the association of the indices with angiography (+). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to establish the cut-off values in differentiating angiography (+) from angiography (-) and healthy subjects. p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
resultsAmong a total of 2326 participants (761 angiography (+), 406 angiography (-), and 1159 controls), the AI index and AIG index were significantly different between the groups (p < 0.001). In LR analysis, after adjustment for potential confounders, the AI index and AIG index were independently associated with angiography (+). ROC curve analysis showed that the AI index (AUC: 0.895; 95% CI: 0.880, 0.908; p < 0.0001) and AIG index (AUC: 0.918; 95% CI: 0.905, 0.930; p < 0.0001) performed better diagnostic performance in differentiating angiography (+) from healthy subjects.
conclusionAI index demonstrated higher AUC compared to other biomarkers in differentiating angiography (+) from angiography (-) and healthy subjects. If it combines with fasting glucose (AIG index), it is a promising indicator for the identification of the CAS particularly from a healthy population, with a promising AUC.
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.