ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2026
Quantifying the Independent and Combined Contributions of Clinical, Genetic, Proteomic, and Metabolomic Signals to ASCVD Prediction.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk prediction based on clinical factors and polygenic risk scores (PRS) does not fully capture dynamic biological processes related to near-term risk. Using UK Biobank participants with matched genetics, plasma proteomics, metabolomics, and clinical data (n=15,787; 1,731 incident ASCVD events), we evaluated the independent and combined contributions of clinical, genetic, proteomic, and metabolomic signals within a unified modeling framework. Modality-specific risk scores were constructed for PRS, proteomics (ProRS), metabolomics (MetRS), and clinical factors, then integrated using Cox models. Proteomics provided the strongest independent predictive contribution, PRS contributed orthogonal inherited risk information, and metabolomics provided intermediate prognostic value. Multi-modal integration improved discrimination compared with single-modality models, and joint ProRS-PRS stratification identified biologically and clinically distinct risk subgroups. These findings support multi-modal risk modeling, particularly proteomics-integrated approaches, for improving ASCVD risk stratification and precision prevention.
Identifiers
42317817PMC13274362What 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.