ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Machine Learning-Driven Prediction of Coronary Artery Disease Risk Based on UK Biobank Plasma Proteomics.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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
backgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading global cause of mortality, yet the predictive accuracy of conventional risk models is limited. Here, we integrate conventional risk factors, polygenic risk scores, and large-scale proteomics to develop a unified model for enhanced CAD risk prediction.
methodsUsing data from UK Biobank, participants with plasma proteomics and genetic risk data were included after excluding prevalent CAD. Participants from England were split into training (n=32 330) and internal validation (n=13 857) sets, and Scotland/Wales participants formed an external validation set (n=5775). Incident CAD was ascertained from linked health records. A 202-protein proteomic risk score was derived by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox regression, and CatBoost models were trained using conventional risk factors alone and with incremental addition of polygenic risk scores and protein proteomic risk scores; Shapley Additive Explanations-guided forward selection identified a compact protein panel.
resultsAcross cohorts, the median age was 58 years and ∼45% were men. Protein proteomic risk score was dose-dependently associated with CAD risk. Compared with conventional risk factors alone, integrating polygenic risk scores and protein proteomic risk scores improved discrimination, with the area under the curve increasing from 0.750 (95% CI, 0.732-0.767) to 0.789 (95% CI, 0.772-0.805) in internal validation and from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.683-0.750) to 0.762 (95% CI, 0.732-0.791) in external validation. A 9-protein panel (GDF15 [growth differentiation factor 15], MMP12 [matrix metalloproteinase 12], NPPB [natriuretic peptide B], PGF [placental growth factor], REN [renin], ADGRG2 [adhesion G-protein coupled receptor], ACE2 [angiotensin-converting enzyme 2], CDCP1 [CUB domain-containing protein 1], CXCL17 [C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 17)]) captured most proteomic predictive information.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that integrating conventional risk factors, polygenic risk scores, and proteomic data improves CAD risk prediction. This study highlights the utility of proteomics in precision cardiovascular medicine and simplified risk stratification tools.
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.