Lipids and apolipoproteins and the risk of vascular disease and mortality outcomes in women and men with type 2 diabetes in the <scp>ADVANCE</scp> study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: Whether apolipoproteins (apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A1 [ApoB/ApoA1] ratio) or very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol are better risk predictors than established lipid risk markers, and whether there are sex differences, is uncertain, both in general populations and in patients with diabetes. The aim of this study was to assess the association between established risk markers, apolipoproteins and the risk of macro- and microvascular disease and death in a large study of women and men with diabetes and to assess the potential sex differences in the associations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Established lipid risk markers were studied in 11 140 individuals with type 2 diabetes from the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified-Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial, and apolipoproteins (A1, B, ApoB/ApoA1 ratio) and VLDL cholesterol from nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) lipid analyses in biobanked samples from 3586 individuals included in the ADVANCE case-cohort study (ADVANCE CC). Primary outcomes were major macro- and microvascular events and death. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for confounders were used to quantify the associations (hazard ratio [HR] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) between established lipid risk markers and apolipoproteins with study outcomes. To address potential effect modification by sex, we investigated the association between the lipid risk markers and outcomes in subgroup analyses by sex. RESULTS: There was a lower risk of macrovascular complications for high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (HR [95%CI] 0.88 [0.82-0.95]), a higher risk for total cholesterol (1.10 [1.04-1.17]), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (1.15 [1.08-1.22]), non-HDL cholesterol (1.13 [1.07-1.20]) and the total cholesterol/HDL ratio (1.20 [1.14-1.27]) but no significant associations with triglycerides from ADVANCE. There was a higher risk of macrovascular complications for the ApoB/ApoA1 ratio (1.13 [1.03-1.24]) from the ADVANCE CC. Only the ApoB/ApoA1 ratio (1.19 [1.06-1.34]), but none of the established lipid risk markers, was associated with a higher risk of microvascular complications. There were no statistically significant sex differences for any of the established lipid risk markers or apolipoproteins with any outcome. Using C-statistics and net reclassification improvement (NRI) did not detect significant improvement in predicting all outcomes by adding lipids or apolipoproteins to the models with confounding factors only. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: All established lipid risk markers, except triglycerides, were predictors of macrovascular complications, but not microvascular complications, in patients with type 2 diabetes. The ApoB/ApoA1 ratio was associated with major macro- and microvascular complications, but there was no evidence that apolipoproteins are better than established lipid risk markers in predicting cardiovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».