Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42676848›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026

Integration of lipidomic and polygenic risk scores within contemporary clinical cardiovascular risk assessment pathways: a multi-cohort development and validation study.

Aleksandar Dakic, Jingqin Wu, Tingting Wang, Thomas G Meikle, Kevin Huynh, Changyu Yi, Habtamu B Beyene, Agus Salim, Michelle Cinel, Nat Mellett and 34 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

44 authors.

Aleksandar DakicBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Jingqin WuBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Tingting WangBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Thomas G MeikleBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Kevin HuynhBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Changyu YiBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Habtamu B BeyeneBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Agus SalimBaker Department of Cardiometabolic Health, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia.
Michelle CinelBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Nat MellettBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Thy DuongBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Alexandra N FaulknerBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Matilda van Buuren-MilneBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Anjali BhagwatBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Jonathan E ShawBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Dianna J MaglianoBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Gerald F WattsMedical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Joseph HungMedical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Jennie HuiPathWest Laboratory Medicine of WA, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
John P BeilbySchool of Biomedical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
John BlangeroSouth Texas Diabetes and Obesity Institute, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, TX, USA.
Eric K MosesSchool of Biomedical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
Melissa C SoutheyMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia.
Roger L MilneMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia.
Allison M HodgeMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia.
John J McNeilSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Paul LacazeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Chenglong YuSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Rory WolfeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Jean Yh YangSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Stuart M GrieveCharles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Clara K ChowWestmead Applied Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Westmead, Australia.
Stephen T VernonKolling Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, St Leonards, Australia.
Michael P GrayKolling Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, St Leonards, Australia.
Gemma A FigtreeCharles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Jedidiah I MortonBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Paul ScuffhamSchool of Medicine and Dentistry - Clinical Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Mark WoodwardThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Lisa KalmanNational Heart Foundation of Australia, Melbourne office, Australia.
Ellie PaigeQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Melinda J CarringtonBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael InouyeBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Corey GilesBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Peter J MeikleBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Guideline-recommended clinical risk scores such as AusCVDRisk underestimate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in a substantial proportion of individuals who later experience events, with up to 65% initially classified as low or intermediate risk. This limitation is most consequential in the intermediate-risk group, where treatment decisions are uncertain and additional risk refinement could alter management. Circulating lipid species and inherited genetic variation capture complementary molecular aspects of atherosclerotic risk that are not fully reflected by conventional clinical variables, but are not routinely incorporated into primary-care risk assessment. We investigated whether selective integration of lipidomic and genomic risk signals into AusCVDRisk improves 5-year CVD prediction and reclassification, with a focus on individuals at intermediate clinical risk. Methods: A lipidomic score comprising 689 lipid species measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was derived using regularised Cox regression in 8082 participants from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (1999-2000). A genome-wide coronary artery disease polygenic score (PGS002048; 762,124 variants) was optimised in 3328 participants from the Busselton Health Study (1994-95). Each score was adjusted for AusCVDRisk predictors to isolate independent effects and incorporated into Cox models retaining the AusCVDRisk linear predictor as a fixed offset, generating lipidomic-enhanced (L.CVDRisk), genomic-enhanced (G.CVDRisk), and combined (LG.CVDRisk) scores. Internal and external validation was performed across five Australian cohorts totalling 13,521 adults without baseline CVD. Discrimination (Harrell's concordance index; C-statistic), calibration, categorical net reclassification improvement (NRI), and decision-curve analyses were assessed. Findings: LG.CVDRisk showed modest gains in discrimination compared with AusCVDRisk (pooled ΔC among intermediate-risk individuals 0.071, 95% CI 0.033-0.109; overall 0.012, 95% CI 0.000-0.024). Risk classification improved substantially (pooled NRI in the intermediate-risk group 0.305, 95% CI 0.212-0.397; overall 0.080, 95% CI 0.031-0.129), with net event and non-event reclassification of 38.2% (95% CI 29.3-47.0%) and -6.8% (95% CI -9.3 to -4.2%) among intermediate-risk individuals. Decision-curve analysis showed the greatest net benefit when molecular profiling was selectively applied to individuals with intermediate AusCVDRisk (5-<10%). In a coronary imaging cohort, LG.CVDRisk reclassified 17 (41%) of 41 intermediate-risk individuals with extensive coronary calcification into the high-risk category. Interpretation: Selective augmentation of an established clinical risk algorithm with lipidomic and genomic information improves cardiovascular risk stratification among individuals at intermediate baseline risk. This approach supports targeted molecular testing within existing primary-care pathways to inform personalised prevention. Funding: National Heart Foundation, Australia, Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, Victorian Government.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular diseaseLipidomicsPolygenic risk scorePrecision preventionRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID42676848
PMCPMC13528312

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.