Abstract:It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.— Attributed to many: Niels Bohr, quantum physicist, 1885–1962 Yogi Berra, baseball player and philosopher, 1925–2015 Questions are often raised whether one should use the term "risk factor" or "predictor," and sometimes they are used interchangeably. The general opinion is that "risk factor" is a broader term and poorly defined, to the extent that many epidemiologists recommend avoiding it.[1] In this compilation issue, we have three contributions that use the term "risk factor(s)," one that uses "predictor," and another one with the similar term "predictive score." If we had an epidemiologist as the Guest Editor for this issue, maybe the authors of the manuscripts using "risk factor" would have been criticized. I have restricted my general critique regarding the statistics and epidemiology to some better-defined areas. First, we see many submissions with p -values and proportion numbers containing too many active digits. When the denominator, for example, is less than 100, there is no point providing a proportion of 59.9% or a p -value of 0.0376. That will give a false impression of very high precision, which is not possible with such a small denominator. The results have to be rounded off. Some journals will not accept more than one active digit for p -values that are nonsignificant; for example, p = 0.44 must be rounded off to 0.4, since the result will not be more nonsignificant by adding digits. Second, distributions of data need to be checked for normality, so that skewed distributions are reported with median and interquartile range (or range) and analyzed with the appropriate test. Third, the term "multivariate" is often wrongly used. When we are analyzing different variables and testing which one(s) might be independent for an outcome, we should use "multivariable." On the other hand, "multivariate" is used when we analyze more than one outcome. Let us now take a look at the contributions to this issue of Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis , starting with some studies focusing on predictors. In patients with dilated cardiomyopathy, there is reduced wall motion and thereby a tendency to blood stasis in the left ventricle. A substantial minority of those patients develop a mural thrombus, with subsequent risk for embolization and stroke. Wu and colleagues reviewed retrospectively 3,134 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and found that among 15 different variables, elevated D-dimer and reduced ejection fraction appeared to be independent risk factors for thrombus formation.[2] It is by now well known that patients with arterial thromboembolic disorders have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—and vice versa. Hu and colleagues have here investigated which cardiovascular risk factors are associated with increased or decreased risk of VTE in general, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism.[3] They had access to genome-wide association study data linked to different risk factors from several biobanks and utilized these data for Mendelian randomization analysis. They found that body mass index (BMI) was associated with all three venous outcomes, whereas physical activity or higher systolic blood pressure might be protective, although differently for VTE in general, DVT, and pulmonary embolism. To continue on the same theme, but in the opposite direction, Noumegni and colleagues used data from Program d'Etude des Déterminants et Interactions de la THrombose veineuse (EDITH) cohort study on patients with VTE to identify predictors for recurrent thrombotic events on both the arterial and the venous side.[4] They analyzed more than 30 variables, when available, from 2,011 patients. Of those, 801 had follow-up for at least 3 months after stopping anticoagulation, and the overall median follow-up was 92 months. The strongest independent predictor for VTE or arterial events during anticoagulant treatment was cancer-associated VTE, followed by unprovoked VTE. However, looking at VTE and arterial events separately, the predictors differed between them. For the study period after discontinuation of anticoagulation, the strongest independent predictor for VTE or arterial events was increasing age, followed by unprovoked VTE. Again, there were differences regarding individual predictors for venous versus arterial events. Building on observation that mitochondrial dysfunction might be implicated in the pathogenesis of thrombosis, the mitochondrial gene regulators are of certain interest. The long noncoding 7S RNA has been identified as such a regulator in vitro as well as in cultured human cells, and therefore Wang and colleagues measured 7S RNA in plasma from 53 patients with and 184 without DVT from a previous study on diagnostic strategy.[5] There was an i -Abstract Truncated-

Association of Circulating Long Noncoding 7S RNA with Deep Vein Thrombosis

Relationship Between Endothelial Cell Protein C Receptor Gene 6936A/G Polymorphisms and Deep Venous Thrombosis.

Circulating mitochondrial long non-coding 7S RNA in primary health care patients with depression/anxiety

Transcriptome Profiling Reveals the Endogenous Sponging Role of LINC00659 and UST-AS1 in High-Altitude Induced Thrombosis

Recent Advances in Thrombosis and Hemostasis—Part IX

Clinical significance and underlying mechanism of long non‐coding RNA SNHG12 in lower extremity deep venous thrombosis

Transfer RNAs are Linked to Ischemic Stroke and Major Bleeding in Patients with End-Stage Kidney Disease

Circulating microRNAs predict recurrence and death following venous thromboembolism

Long Noncoding Rna Expression Profile Of Endothelial Progenitor Cells From Deep Vein Thrombosis Patients Identified By Microarray Analysis

Serum Metabolic Profiles Based on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy among Patients with Deep Vein Thrombosis and Healthy Controls

High Prevalence of F2 20210G > A in Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis and Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Patients with Thrombosis in Atypical Sites

Significant role of long non-coding RNA MALAT1 in deep vein thrombosis via the regulation of vascular endothelial cell physiology through the microRNA-383-5p/BCL2L11 axis

Endothelial receptor proteins in acute venous thrombosis and delayed thrombus resolution in cerebral sinus vein thrombosis

Non-coding RNAs regulating endothelial progenitor cells for venous thrombosis: promising therapy and innovation

Utilizing RNA sequencing to identify gene expression markers of stroke-causing thrombi origin: A pilot study

Dynamic observation of circRNA and mRNA profiles in a rat model of deep vein thrombosis

Clinical Risk Factors of Asymptomatic Deep Venous Thrombosis in Patients with Acute Stroke.

Biomarkers Profile in Provoked Versus Unprovoked Deep Venous Thrombosis

The Predictive Value of Circulating Micrornas for Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis.

Circulating extracellular DNA is an independent predictor of mortality in elderly patients with venous thromboembolism

Circulating miR-let7a levels predict future diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension