Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,296

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Novel Risk Factors for Systemic Atherosclerosis: A Comparison of C-Reactive Protein, Fibrinogen, Homocysteine, Lipoprotein(a), and Standard Cholesterol Screening as Predictors of Peripheral Arterial Disease

Ridker, Paul M., Stampfer, Meir J., Rifai, Nader·2001·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Several novel risk factors for atherosclerosis have recently been proposed, but few comparative data exist to guide clinical use of these emerging biomarkers. OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive value of 11 lipid and nonlipid biomarkers as risk factors for development of symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Nested case-control study using plasma samples collected at baseline from a prospective cohort of 14 916 initially healthy US male physicians aged 40 to 84 years, of whom 140 subsequently developed symptomatic PAD (cases); 140 age- and smoking status-matched men who remained free of vascular disease during an average 9-year follow-up period were randomly selected as controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incident PAD, as determined by baseline total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol-HDL-C ratio, triglycerides, homocysteine, C-reactive protein (CRP), lipoprotein(a), fibrinogen, and apolipoproteins (apo) A-I and B-100. RESULTS: In univariate analyses, plasma levels of total cholesterol (P<.001), LDL-C (P =.001), triglycerides (P =.001), apo B-100 (P =.001), fibrinogen (P =.02), CRP (P =.006), and the total cholesterol-HDL-C ratio (P<.001) were all significantly higher at baseline among men who subsequently developed PAD compared with those who did not, while levels of HDL-C (P =.009) and apo A-I (P =.05) were lower. Nonsignificant baseline elevations of lipoprotein(a) (P =.40) and homocysteine (P =.90) were observed. In multivariable analyses, the total cholesterol-HDL-C ratio was the strongest lipid predictor of risk (relative risk [RR] for those in the highest vs lowest quartile, 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-8.6), while CRP was the strongest nonlipid predictor (RR for the highest vs lowest quartile, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-5.9). In assessing joint effects, addition of CRP to standard lipid screening significantly improved risk prediction models based on lipid screening alone (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Of 11 atherothrombotic biomarkers assessed at baseline, the total cholesterol-HDL-C ratio and CRP were the strongest independent predictors of development of peripheral arterial disease. C-reactive protein provided additive prognostic information over standard lipid measures.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.285.19.2481

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 1,296

Metadata

Authors
Ridker, P. M., Stampfer, M. J., & Rifai, N.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2001-05-16
Volume
285
Issue
19
Pages
2481
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2085058703
Cited by
1,296
References
3
FWCI
81.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Novel Risk Factors for Systemic Atherosclerosis: A Comparison of C-Reactive Protein, Fibrinogen, Homocysteine, Lipoprotein(a), and Standard Cholesterol Screening as Predictors of Peripheral Arterial Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.285.19.2481
The paper
Ridker, P. M., Stampfer, M. J., & Rifai, N. (2001). Novel Risk Factors for Systemic Atherosclerosis: A Comparison of C-Reactive Protein, Fibrinogen, Homocysteine, Lipoprotein(a), and Standard Cholesterol Screening as Predictors of Peripheral Arterial Disease. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.19.2481

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.