↓ Skip to main content

Cystatin C and Cardiovascular Disease A Mendelian Randomization Study

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cystatin C and Cardiovascular Disease A Mendelian Randomization Study
Published in
JACC, August 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.05.092
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sander W. van der Laan, Tove Fall, Aicha Soumaré, Alexander Teumer, Sanaz Sedaghat, Jens Baumert, Delilah Zabaneh, Jessica van Setten, Ivana Isgum, Tessel E. Galesloot, Johannes Arpegård, Philippe Amouyel, Stella Trompet, Melanie Waldenberger, Marcus Dörr, Patrik K. Magnusson, Vilmantas Giedraitis, Anders Larsson, Andrew P. Morris, Janine F. Felix, Alanna C. Morrison, Nora Franceschini, Joshua C. Bis, Maryam Kavousi, Christopher O'Donnell, Fotios Drenos, Vinicius Tragante, Patricia B. Munroe, Rainer Malik, Martin Dichgans, Bradford B. Worrall, Jeanette Erdmann, Christopher P. Nelson, Nilesh J. Samani, Heribert Schunkert, Jonathan Marchini, Riyaz S. Patel, Aroon D. Hingorani, Lars Lind, Nancy L. Pedersen, Jacqueline de Graaf, Lambertus A.L.M. Kiemeney, Sebastian E. Baumeister, Oscar H. Franco, Albert Hofman, André G. Uitterlinden, Wolfgang Koenig, Christa Meisinger, Annette Peters, Barbara Thorand, J. Wouter Jukema, Bjørn Odvar Eriksen, Ingrid Toft, Tom Wilsgaard, N. Charlotte Onland-Moret, Yvonne T. van der Schouw, Stéphanie Debette, Meena Kumari, Per Svensson, Pim van der Harst, Mika Kivimaki, Brendan J. Keating, Naveed Sattar, Abbas Dehghan, Alex P. Reiner, Erik Ingelsson, Hester M. den Ruijter, Paul I.W. de Bakker, Gerard Pasterkamp, Johan Ärnlöv, Michael V. Holmes, Folkert W. Asselbergs

Abstract

Epidemiological studies show that high circulating cystatin C is associated with risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), independent of creatinine-based renal function measurements. It is unclear whether this relationship is causal, arises from residual confounding, and/or is a consequence of reverse causation. The aim of this study was to use Mendelian randomization to investigate whether cystatin C is causally related to CVD in the general population. We incorporated participant data from 16 prospective cohorts (n = 76,481) with 37,126 measures of cystatin C and added genetic data from 43 studies (n = 252,216) with 63,292 CVD events. We used the common variant rs911119 in CST3 as an instrumental variable to investigate the causal role of cystatin C in CVD, including coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and heart failure. Cystatin C concentrations were associated with CVD risk after adjusting for age, sex, and traditional risk factors (relative risk: 1.82 per doubling of cystatin C; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.56 to 2.13; p = 2.12 × 10(-14)). The minor allele of rs911119 was associated with decreased serum cystatin C (6.13% per allele; 95% CI: 5.75 to 6.50; p = 5.95 × 10(-211)), explaining 2.8% of the observed variation in cystatin C. Mendelian randomization analysis did not provide evidence for a causal role of cystatin C, with a causal relative risk for CVD of 1.00 per doubling cystatin C (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.22; p = 0.994), which was statistically different from the observational estimate (p = 1.6 × 10(-5)). A causal effect of cystatin C was not detected for any individual component of CVD. Mendelian randomization analyses did not support a causal role of cystatin C in the etiology of CVD. As such, therapeutics targeted at lowering circulating cystatin C are unlikely to be effective in preventing CVD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 170 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Student > Master 12 7%
Professor 11 6%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 56 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 65 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,142,581
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#4,526
of 16,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,977
of 380,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#104
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 380,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.