Key result
Machine learning-derived proteomics phenogroup linked to ~77% higher cardiovascular event risk despite similar clinical age.
Why the study?
Proteomics offers potential biomarkers reflecting pathophysiology associated with cardiovascular outcomes, but identifying predictive proteins and clinically relevant clusters using machine learning survival analysis was needed.
Cohort (n=768)
Hazard Ratio: 1.77 (95% CI 1.27–2.46)
Absolute Event Rate: 29.4% vs 16.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
A machine learning-derived 15-protein panel successfully stratified community-dwelling individuals into three phenogroups with distinct cardiovascular risk profiles and longitudinal echocardiographic changes.
May identify higher CV risk independent of age; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
Proteomics offers potential biomarkers that reflect underlying pathophysiological processes associated with cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. We aimed to identify proteins predictive of CV adverse events using machine learning survival analysis methods and to define clinically relevant protein-based clusters. We analyzed data from 768 community-based participants (mean age: 58.0 ± 10.8 years; 49.7% women) from FLEMENGHO who underwent echocardiography and proteomic profiling. CV events were tracked over a median of 10.9 years. Using Random Survival Forests and Gradient Boosting Survival Analysis, 15 proteins were among the most predictive for CV events. They were involved in key CV biological processes, including extracellular matrix organization (MMP-12), angiogenesis (ANGPT1, PlGF), blood pressure regulation and kidney function (KIM-1, REN, ACE2, BNP), apoptosis (TRAIL-R2), autophagy (CTSL1), proteolysis (PAPPA), inflammatory and immune response (CD40-L, Dkk-1, Gal-9, RAGE), and metabolism (AGRP). Using Gaussian Mixture Model based on those proteins levels, three phenogroups were identified. Cluster 3 exhibited the worst baseline CV risk profile. Although clusters 1 and 2 consisted of relatively younger individuals, cluster 2 was associated with significantly higher CV risk (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.27–2.46, p < 0.001). Differences in cardiac structure and function were noted cross-sectional and longitudinally. Therefore, we identified proteins predictive of CV events that stratified CV risk in the community.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santana et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular risk (n=768). Proteomics-based phenogroup (Cluster 2) vs. Cluster 1 was evaluated on Cardiovascular events (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.27-2.46, p=<0.001). A machine learning-derived proteomics phenogroup (cluster 2) was associated with a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular events compared to cluster 1 (HR 1.77) despite similar clinical age.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: