Back

Interrelations between Atherogenic Index of Plasma, Subclinical Myocardial Injury, and Cardiovascular Mortality in the General Population

Sandesara, U.; Kazibwe, R.; Yeboah, J.; Soliman, E. Z.

2026-01-16 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.01.14.26344126 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo examine the association between Atherogenic Index of Plasma (AIP) and subclinical myocardial injury (SCMI), and their combined impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in the general population. MethodsThis analysis included 7,093 participants without CVD from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. AIP was calculated as the logarithmic ratio of triglycerides to HDL cholesterol. Participants were stratified into low or high AIP groups based on the median AIP value (0.958). Electrocardiographic SCMI was defined as Cardiac Infarction/Injury Score [≥]10 points. CVD mortality data were obtained from the National Death Index. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the baseline cross-sectional association between AIP and SCMI, while Cox proportional hazards models examined the relationship between different baseline AIP/SCMI groups and CVD mortality. ResultsHigh AIP was associated with increased odds of SCMI [OR(95% CI): 1.20(1.07-1.35)] in multivariable logistic regression analysis. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, compared to participants with low AIP and absent SCMI, those with SCMI had a higher risk of CVD mortality regardless of AIP level [(HR(95% CI) 1.28(1.05-1.57) and 1.33(1.10-1.60)]. However, high AIP without SCMI was not associated with CVD mortality [HR (95% CI) 0.94(0.79-1.11)]. ConclusionsHigh AIP was associated with an increased risk of SCMI. SCMI was linked to a higher risk of CVD mortality regardless of AIP levels, while high AIP was only associated with CVD mortality when SCMI was present, suggesting that the reported adverse outcomes linked to high AIP may be driven by the development of SCMI.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.