ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Enhanced independent discriminative performance of elevated lipoprotein(a) for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes: a comparative analysis of optimal cutoff values.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. 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
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the independent discriminative performance of elevated Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in identifying prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD), specifically in patients with Diabetes Mellitus (DM), and to determine the optimal cutoff values for identifying CVD in the DM population. Methods: A stratified analysis was conducted across general, DM, and non-DM patient groups. Correlation analysis was employed to assess the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and metabolic factors in different age groups. Furthermore, binary regression was used to calculate combined risk scores. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was utilized to determine the area under the curve (AUC) for the discriminative performance of Lp(a) alone, traditional parameters (excluding Lp(a)), and the combined model. This analysis identified the optimal cutoff values for each group. Results: Comparisons of Lp(a) variations showed that Lp(a)>300mg/L was associated with an increased prevalence of CVDs in general and non-diabetic patients, while it was insignificant in patients with DM, unless the cutoff was set as low as 70mg/L; Correlation analyses showed that, regardless of minor nuances between the general and DM groups, Lp(a) was significantly related to Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and Apolipoprotein B (ApoB), but negatively related to Glycated Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), Triglycerides (TG), and free triiodothyronine (FT3); when stratified by age, no correlation was associated with Lp(a), but an association was found with CVD in the 65-75 age group, while Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) prevalence was higher in the <65 age group across groups except for Lp(a)>70mg/L in the DM group; correlational analyses revealed that Lp(a) was positively related with CVD in the <65 age group compared to the general group. Regression analyses revealed that HbA1c and age significantly contributed to increased CVD in DM and that Lp(a) was determined by FT3 and albumin (Alb) in DM; ROC curves demonstrated that the combination of Lp(a) with traditional parameters significantly enhanced the AUC for CVD in DM. Conclusion: Elevated Lp(a) levels are significantly associated with CVD and demonstrate strong discriminative utility, particularly in patients with DM. These findings suggest that more stringent Lp(a) thresholds may be warranted in the clinical management of diabetic patients to better identify individuals at high risk for cardiovascular outcomes.
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.