Back

Unbiased characterization of atrial fibrillation phenotypic architecture provides insight to genetic liability and clinically relevant outcomes

Davogustto, G. E.; Zhao, S.; Li, Y.; Farber-Eger, E.; Lowery, B. D.; Shaffer, L. L.; Mosley, J.; Shoemaker, M. B.; Xu, Y.; Roden, D. M.; Wells, Q. S.

2024-02-14 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2024.02.13.24302788 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAtrial Fibrillation (AF) is a common and clinically heterogeneous arrythmia. Machine learning (ML) algorithms can define data-driven disease subtypes in an unbiased fashion, but whether the AF subgroups defined in this way align with underlying mechanisms, such as high polygenic liability to AF or inflammation, and associate with clinical outcomes is unclear. MethodsWe identified individuals with AF in a large biobank linked to electronic health records (EHR) and genome-wide genotyping. The phenotypic architecture in the AF cohort was defined using principal component analysis of 35 expertly curated and uncorrelated clinical features. We applied an unsupervised co-clustering machine learning algorithm to the 35 features to identify distinct phenotypic AF clusters. The clinical inflammatory status of the clusters was defined using measured biomarkers (CRP, ESR, WBC, Neutrophil %, Platelet count, RDW) within 6 months of first AF mention in the EHR. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for AF and cytokine levels were used to assess genetic liability of clusters to AF and inflammation, respectively. Clinical outcomes were collected from EHR up to the last medical contact. ResultsThe analysis included 23,271 subjects with AF, of which 6,023 had available genome-wide genotyping. The machine learning algorithm identified 3 phenotypic clusters that were distinguished by increasing prevalence of comorbidities, particularly renal dysfunction, and coronary artery disease. Polygenic liability to AF across clusters was highest in the low comorbidity cluster. Clinically measured inflammatory biomarkers were highest in the high comorbid cluster, while there was no difference between groups in genetically predicted levels of inflammatory biomarkers. Subgroup assignment was associated with multiple clinical outcomes including mortality, stroke, bleeding, and use of cardiac implantable electronic devices after AF diagnosis. ConclusionPatient subgroups identified by unsupervised clustering were distinguished by comorbidity burden and associated with risk of clinically important outcomes. Polygenic liability to AF across clusters was greatest in the low comorbidity subgroup. Clinical inflammation, as reflected by measured biomarkers, was lowest in the subgroup with lowest comorbidities. However, there were no differences in genetically predicted levels of inflammatory biomarkers, suggesting associations between AF and inflammation is driven by acquired comorbidities rather than genetic predisposition.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
41.7%
2
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
11.0%
50% of probability mass above
3
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
7.2%
4
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
5
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.8%
6
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
7
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.0%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.2%
9
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
10
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
11
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.4%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.3%
15
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
16
Hypertension
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
17
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
18
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
19
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
20
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%
21
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%