ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2026
Cardioprotective therapy in type 2 diabetes guided by a proteomic risk model: A randomized trial.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 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.
- Disrupting clinical inertia: Personalizing cardiovascular risk to transform cardiometabolic care in the real world.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
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: Cardioprotective (CP) therapies such as GLP-1 RA, SGLT2i, and PCSK9i medications remain underutilized in cardiovascular (CV) risk management. Individualized risk assessment using blood-based proteomic testing, such as Residual Cardiovascular Risk (RCVR) scores, may help guide treatment decisions. Objective: To evaluate whether access to RCVR scores improves risk-concordant prescribing of CP medications in clinical practice. Methods: In this multicenter, open label, behavioral randomized trial, adults with type 2 diabetes eligible for CP medications underwent SomaScan™ proteomic testing. Participants were randomized to an informed (RCVR results shared with patient and clinicians) or uninformed arm (results withheld until study end). CP prescribing rate and sensitivity-to-change of RCVR to CP initiation were assessed by trial arm. Chi-square trend in proportions, one-sided 2-sample tests for equality of proportions, and one-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: Among 377 baseline participants analyzed (59 % informed; mean age 66 ± 10.3 years; 45 % female), CP prescribing was significantly higher in the informed versus uninformed arm (32.1 % vs 9.6 %; OR 5.45; 95 % CI: 2.31-12.89; Conclusions: Disclosure of proteomic RCVR scores was associated with higher rates of CP prescribing and short-term reductions in proteomic risk scores among CP medication users; proteomics-based risk assessment may support personalized CV prevention.
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.