Cited by 44Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyNutrition, Genetics, and Disease

Utility of genetic determinants of lipids and cardiovascular events in assessing risk

Holmes, Michael V., Harrison, Seamus, Talmud, Philippa J., Hingorani, Aroon D., Humphries, Steve E.·2011·Nature Reviews Cardiology

Abstract

The prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major public-health goal, but disease architecture is such that a larger proportion of clinical events occur among the average majority than among the high-risk minority--the prevention paradox. Genetic findings over the past few years have resulted in the reopening of the old debate on whether an individualized or a population-based approach to prevention is preferable. Genetic testing is an attractive tool for CHD risk prediction because it is a low-cost, high-fidelity technology with multiplex capability. Moreover, by contrast with nongenetic markers, genotype is invariant and determined from conception, which eliminates biological variability and makes prediction from early life possible. Mindful of the prevention paradox, this Review examines the potential applications and challenges of using genetic information for predicting CHD, focusing on lipid risk factors and drawing on experience in the evaluation of nongenetic risk factors as screening tests for CHD. Many of the issues we discuss hold true for any late-onset common disease with modifiable risk factors and proven preventative strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrcardio.2011.6

Cites

165 of 165 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The presence of genetic evidence to support causation increases the probability several-fold of a therapeutic targeting the same biomarker being successful in a phase III outcome trial and obtaining a marketing authorisation.

    “The presence of genetic evidence to support causation increases the probability several-fold of a therapeutic targeting the same biomarker being successful in a phase III outcome trial and obtaining a marketing authorisation 11 12 .”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 167 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holmes, M. V., Harrison, S., Talmud, P. J., Hingorani, A. D., & Humphries, S. E.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Hingorani, Aroon D.
  • Humphries, Steve E.
Venue
Nature Reviews Cardiology
Published
2011-02-15
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
207-221
ISSN
  • 1759-5002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-5010
OpenAlex
W2027805811
Cited by
44
References
167
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 13
FWCI
1.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
British Heart Foundation (FS/11/16/28696, FS05/125, RG 08/008, PG/07/133/24)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Keywords
coronary artery disease, genetic risk prediction, genetic testing, prevention paradox, cardiovascular risk assessment, lipid screening, modifiable risk factors
MeSH terms
Coronary Artery Disease, Ethnicity, Genetic Testing, Humans, Lipids, Risk Factors, Genetic Variation, Genome, Human, Risk Assessment, Genome-Wide Association Study

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