Proteomics-based clustering outperforms clinical clustering in identifying heart failure patient groups with distinct outcomes
van Vugt, M.; She, R.; Kardys, I.; Petersen, T. B.; de Bakker, M.; Akkerhuis, K. M.; Caliskan, K.; Manintveld, O. C.; Uijl, A.; van Ramshorst, J.; Rizopoulos, D.; Umans, V. A.; Boersma, E.; Lanfear, D. E.; Asselbergs, F. W.; van Setten, J.; Schmidt, A. F.
Show abstract
Background.Clustering of heart failure (HF) patients typically relies on clinical characteristics, which may not reflect underlying pathophysiology relevant for personalised medicine. We aimed to identify plasma protein profiles of HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods.Using latent class analysis, we derived clusters based on 1) clinical characteristics, and 2) proteomics (SomaScan) from 379 HFrEF patients. Survival analysis assessed associations with major cardiovascular (CV) events (a composite of HF hospitalization, CV death, heart transplantation, and left ventricular assist device implantation), HF hospitalization, CV death, and all-cause mortality. To aid clinical understanding, we identified differentially expressed proteins and explored their druggability. Results.Clustering on clinical characteristics identified three patient clusters that did not differ in disease progression. Proteomics-based clustering identified three clusters associated with disease progression. Cluster 1 included younger patients with fewer comorbidities, whereas cluster 3 consisted of older patients with more atrial fibrillation and renal failure. Cluster 2 had intermediate values for most characteristics; medication use was similar across clusters. Over three years of follow-up, cluster 1 had few events. Compared to this cluster, cluster 2 had increased risk of major CV events (HR 2.31, 95%CI 1.23; 4.36) and HF hospitalization (HR 2.30, 95%CI 1.10; 4.78), but not of death. Cluster 3 had high event rates with HRs of 5.84 (major CV events), 6.50 (HF hospitalization), 8.58 (CV death), and 5.07 (all-cause mortality). Results were externally validated in 511 HFrEF patients. Twelve proteins were differentially expressed, including druggable targets CD2, GDF-15, ABO, IGFBP-1, IGFBP-2, and RNase1. Conclusions.Proteomics-based HFrEF clustering identified three clusters associated with distinct disease outcomes, undetected using clinical characteristics.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Aptamer Proteomics for Biomarker Discovery in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction 97%
- Right Ventricular Sarcomere Contractile Depression and the Role of Thick Filament Activation in Human Heart Failure with Pulmonary Hypertension 93%
- Transcriptional and Cellular Diversity of the Human Heart 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genome-wide association analysis and Mendelian randomization proteomics identify novel protein biomarkers and drug targets for primary prevention of heart failure 95%
- Proteomic Signature of HIV-Associated Subclinical Left Atrial Remodeling and Incident Heart Failure 95%
- Cardiomyocyte Contractile Impairment in Heart Failure Results from Reduced BAG3-mediated Sarcomeric Protein Turnover 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Multinational Validation of an Ensemble Deep Learning Algorithm for Detecting and Predicting Structural Heart Disease Using Noisy Single-lead Electrocardiograms 91%
- Clinical and genetic associations of asymmetric apical and septal left ventricular hypertrophy 91%
- Simple Models Versus Deep Learning in Detecting Low Ejection Fraction From The Electrocardiogram 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Metabolomic profile for understanding heart failure classifications 94%
- Altered Intercellular Communication and Extracellular Matrix Signaling as a Potential Disease Mechanism in Human Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy 92%
- Proteomic signatures of acute oxidative stress response to paraquat in the mouse heart 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.