Meeshanthini V Dogan1,2, Stacey Knight3,4, Timur K Dogan1, Kirk U Knowlton3, Robert Philibert1,5. 1. Cardio Diagnostics, Inc., Coralville, IA 52241, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. 3. Intermountain Heart Institute, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT 84103, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Abstract
Aim: The Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) for predicting risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) work poorly. To improve risk stratification for CHD, we developed a novel integrated genetic-epigenetic tool. Materials & methods: Using machine learning techniques and datasets from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and Intermountain Healthcare (IM), we developed and validated an integrated genetic-epigenetic model for predicting 3-year incident CHD. Results: Our approach was more sensitive than FRS and PCE and had high generalizability across cohorts. It performed with sensitivity/specificity of 79/75% in the FHS test set and 75/72% in the IM set. The sensitivity/specificity was 15/93% in FHS and 31/89% in IM for FRS, and sensitivity/specificity was 41/74% in FHS and 69/55% in IM for PCE. Conclusion: The use of our tool in a clinical setting could better identify patients at high risk for a heart attack.
Aim: The Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) for predicting risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) work poorly. To improve risk stratification for CHD, we developed a novel integrated genetic-epigenetic tool. Materials & methods: Using machine learning techniques and datasets from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and Intermountain Healthcare (IM), we developed and validated an integrated genetic-epigenetic model for predicting 3-year incident CHD. Results: Our approach was more sensitive than FRS and PCE and had high generalizability across cohorts. It performed with sensitivity/specificity of 79/75% in the FHS test set and 75/72% in the IM set. The sensitivity/specificity was 15/93% in FHS and 31/89% in IM for FRS, and sensitivity/specificity was 41/74% in FHS and 69/55% in IM for PCE. Conclusion: The use of our tool in a clinical setting could better identify patients at high risk for a heart attack.
Authors: Alexis C Frazier-Wood; Ani Manichaikul; Stella Aslibekyan; Ingrid B Borecki; David C Goff; Paul N Hopkins; Chao-Qiang Lai; Jose M Ordovas; Wendy S Post; Stephen S Rich; Michèle M Sale; David Siscovick; Robert J Straka; Hemant K Tiwari; Michael Y Tsai; Jerome I Rotter; Donna K Arnett Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2012-12-22 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Thomas F Imperiale; David F Ransohoff; Steven H Itzkowitz; Theodore R Levin; Philip Lavin; Graham P Lidgard; David A Ahlquist; Barry M Berger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yan Zhang; Ben Schöttker; Ines Florath; Christian Stock; Katja Butterbach; Bernd Holleczek; Ute Mons; Hermann Brenner Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Aditi Shendre; Marguerite R Irvin; Howard Wiener; Degui Zhi; Nita A Limdi; Edgar T Overton; Sadeep Shrestha Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Robert Philibert; Jeffrey D Long; James A Mills; S R H Beach; Frederick X Gibbons; Meg Gerrard; Ron Simons; Paulo B Pinho; Douglas Ingle; Kelsey Dawes; Timur Dogan; Meeshanthini Dogan Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 4.528