ArticleMedicine2026
Association of novel lipid markers with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease risk: A cross-sectional NHANES 1999 to 2018 study.
Article in Medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dyslipidemia is central to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases (CCVD). This study investigates associations of novel lipid markers - NHHR (non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio), atherogenic index of plasma (AIP), and lipid accumulation product (LAP) - with CCVD risks using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, comparing their predictive performance with traditional lipid and obesity indices. Data from 18,996 adults were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated associations of NHHR/AIP/LAP with hypertension, heart failure, coronary heart disease, angina, and stroke. Restricted cubic splines (RCSs) tested nonlinearity, receiver operating characteristic curves assessed predictive ability, and subgroup analyses examined heterogeneity. Fully adjusted models revealed significant associations of NHHR and AIP with hypertension, heart failure, coronary heart disease, angina, and stroke, while LAP showed no link to stroke. RCS indicated nonlinear NHHR-hypertension and NHHR-coronary heart disease relationships (P for nonlinear < .05). AIP exhibited nonlinear associations with hypertension and stroke, while LAP demonstrated threshold effects for hypertension, coronary heart disease, and angina. Subgroup analyses identified interactions: sex and diabetes modified NHHR-hypertension associations (P < .05); AIP-hypertension links varied by sex, education, smoking, and body mass index (BMI); LAP-hypertension associations differed by sex and BMI (P < .05). NHHR, AIP, and LAP independently predict CCVD risks, with AIP showing optimal stability, surpassing traditional markers. Prospective studies are needed to confirm causality.
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.