ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Identification of a plasma proteomic signature associated with sudden cardiac death risk in the UK biobank.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains difficult to predict in the general population, and proteomics may offer additional prognostic information. We aimed to develop and evaluate a plasma proteomic signature for SCD risk prediction in the UK Biobank. Methods: We analyzed prospective data from 52,826 UK Biobank participants, including 408 incident SCD cases. A proteomic signature was derived using repeated LASSO-Cox regression. Its biological relevance was explored by GO enrichment and PPI analyses. Predictive performance was assessed by discrimination, reclassification, calibration, and decision curve analysis. Results: A 71-protein signature was identified. Each 1-SD increase in the proteomic signature was associated with a higher risk of incident SCD (HR 3.25, 95% CI 2.94-3.58). Although non-proportional hazards were detected, the time-dependent association remained positive throughout follow-up. The proteomic-signature model showed substantially better discrimination than the clinical model (AUC 0.871 vs. 0.770), whereas the combined model provided only minimal additional improvement (AUC 0.872). Compared with the clinical model alone, the combined model improved reclassification (IDI 0.033, 95% CI 0.022-0.050; continuous NRI 0.403, 95% CI 0.351-0.459; both Conclusion: The proteomic signature was independently associated with incident SCD and improved risk stratification beyond the clinical model. However, its clinical utility should be interpreted cautiously, and external validation is required before clinical application.
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.