ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Remnant Cholesterol and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Populations With Different Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Elevations: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Top 10 Concepts in Secondary ASCVD Prevention From the 2026 ACC/AHA Dyslipidemia Guideline: What Is New and Why It Matters.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and remnant cholesterol (RC) are risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, the extent to which differences in RC levels affect ASCVD risk in populations with varying degrees of LDL-C elevation remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether RC can provide additional risk stratification value across different sexes, ages, and elevated LDL-C statuses.
methodsThis study included 12 743 elevated LDL-C participants (LDL-C ≥3.4 mmol/L) and 50 073 age- and sex-matched non-elevated LDL-C controls from the Kailuan Study. Elevated LDL-C participants were categorized by RC levels into <0.5, 0.5 to <1.0, and ≥1.0 mmol/L subgroups. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the relationship between RC levels and ASCVD risk across different sexes, ages, and high LDL-C statuses.
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 12.8 years, 1686 elevated LDL-C participants (13.2%) and 5252 non-elevated LDL-C participants (10.5%) developed ASCVD. In the borderline-high LDL-C group (3.4 ≤ LDL-C < 4.1 mmol/L), those with the lowest RC levels showed no significant risk difference compared with controls (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.93-1.13]), and this pattern remained consistent across different sexes and ages. In contrast, in the high LDL-C group (LDL-C ≥4.1 mmol/L), even when RC was at the lowest level, ASCVD risk remained significantly higher than that of controls (HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.02-1.41]).
conclusionsIn the borderline-high LDL-C population, those with the lowest RC levels showed no significant risk difference compared with controls, and this pattern remained consistent across different sexes and age subgroups. In the high LDL-C population, even when RC was at the lowest level, ASCVD risk remained significantly higher than that of controls.
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.