Management of high blood cholesterol levels in Nova Scotian adults: comparison with the NCEP II and European clinical practice guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of dietary and drug treatment for high blood cholesterol levels with indication for treatment according to the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) II and European clinical practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: A population-based, cross-sectional study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were from the 1995 Nova Scotia Health Survey. Patients were 2078 respondents aged 20 to 74 years who provided blood samples. Based on cardiovascular risk factors, respondents were compared with guidelines to determine eligibility for dietary and antilipemic drug therapy. RESULTS: According to the NCEP II and European guidelines, 21% and 13%, respectively, of the population were estimated to be dietary therapy candidates and 12% and 4%, respectively, were estimated to be candidates for antilipemic drug therapy. Less than half of the dietary therapy candidates, according to either guideline, reported being diagnosed, and only about half of those diagnosed reported having received dietary therapy. Overall, 6% to 15% of the NCEP II drug therapy candidates and 12% to 37% of the European drug therapy candidates were estimated to be receiving antilipemic drugs. Only about 45% of the NCEP II and 60% of the European drug therapy candidates reported being diagnosed as having high blood cholesterol levels, and only about 50% of the NCEP II- and 60% of the European-diagnosed drug therapy candidates reported having received dietary therapy. The estimated prevalence of antilipemic drug therapy among diagnosed drug therapy candidates was 12% to 29% for the NCEP II and 12% to 52% for the European guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary therapy and antilipemic drug therapy were underused relative to the NCEP II and European guidelines as a result of underdiagnosis and low use of treatment after diagnosis. Large differences in the recommendations of the 2 guidelines, however, show lack of consensus as to who should be treated and point to the need for additional research on this issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".