ArticleNPJ cardiovascular health2025
Polygenic risk scores improve CAD risk prediction in individuals at borderline and intermediate clinical risk.
Article in NPJ cardiovascular health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inherited risk of coronary artery disease: redefining care with imaging and genetics.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Gene-Air Pollution Interaction in Cardiovascular Disease: Lights and Shadows in a Tangled Risk Factor Network.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Genetic Susceptibility to Diabetes Subtypes and Risk of Developing Coronary Artery Disease.Diabetes care · 2026Article
- Does Combining the STarT Back Tool With a Polygenic Risk Score for Chronic Low Back Pain Improve Prediction of Work Disability Over 2 Years?European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- Stability of integrated polygenic and clinical coronary artery disease risk prediction.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Mapping and evaluation of global and country-specific cardiovascular disease risk prediction models.Future cardiology · 2026Review
- Economic modeling of polygenic risk prediction of coronary artery disease in childhood.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Article
- Integrating Polygenic Scores with Clinical, Lifestyle, and Social Risk Factors to Improve Heart Failure Risk Prediction.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2026Article
- Effects of polygenic risk score communication on short term health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ medicine · 2026Article
- Advancing global cardiovascular research and clinical translation.NPJ cardiovascular health · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can improve clinical risk tools for coronary artery disease (CAD). This study assessed a risk model integrating PRS across populations, focusing on individuals with borderline/intermediate clinical risk. We developed ancestry-specific ensemble models combining multi-ancestry PRSs for CAD and type 2 diabetes. The cross-ancestry PRS (caPRS) was integrated with the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) to derive the cross-ancestry Integrated Risk Score (caIRS), estimating 10-year CAD risk. The caIRS outperformed the PCE across four cohorts, including UK Biobank and Penn Medicine Biobank, with significant improvements for Hispanic and South Asian individuals. For those at borderline/intermediate PCE risk (5-20%), the caIRS reclassified between 7.0% and 10.7% into the high-risk group, which had higher CAD incidence and hazard ratios ranging from 3.20 to 3.84. The CAD caIRS, combining genetic and clinical factors, enhances high-risk CAD identification across diverse populations, potentially improving treatment guidance.
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.