ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Association between fibrosis-4 index and coronary heart disease: a population-based 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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although the fibrosis-4 index (FIB‐4) was initially established as a liver fibrosis marker, recent studies have demonstrated its significant association with elevated risk of coronary artery disease(CHD). This study was conducted using data from five National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) cycles between 2009 and 2018. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed a significant, positive relationship between FIB-4 and CHD.In sensitivity analyses, the highest FIB-4 quartile (Q4) showed a 4.22-fold increased CHD risk versus Q1 (OR = 4.22, 95% CI:1.93–9.24, P = 0.0005), with significant dose-response trends across quartiles (P < 0.05). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed FIB-4 had good discriminative power for CHD (AUC = 0.80, 95%CI:0.78–0.81), with 75.9% sensitivity and 30.2% specificity at the optimal cutoff of 1.31. Restricted cubic splines (RCS) analysis revealed a nonlinear dose-response relationship between FIB-4 and CHD risk (P < 0.0001), with accelerated risk elevation beyond the inflection point (FIB-4 = 2.73). Subgroup analyses confirmed FIB-4’s robust association with CHD risk (overall OR = 1.66, 95%CI:1.57–1.76), with stronger effects in males (vs. females, Pinteraction = 0.042), non-diabetics (vs. diabetics, Pinteraction < 0.001), and racial minorities (highest OR = 2.36 in ‘Other Race’).These findings underscore the potential of FIB-4 as a novel biomarker for CHD risk assessment in clinical practice.
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.