MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines

2006· review· en· W1557641267 on OpenAlexaff
Alice Cheng, Lawrence A. Leiter

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoGovernment of CanadaSt. Michael's HospitalCredit Valley Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFenofibrateFibrateClinical trialStatinDiabetes mellitusNational Cholesterol Education ProgramInternal medicineCholesterolRandomized controlled trialSubgroup analysisObservational studyIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisEndocrinologyMetabolic syndrome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In 2001, the Adult Treatment Panel III of the National Cholesterol Education Program issued recommendations, which were updated in 2004 to reflect knowledge from five major clinical trials completed after 2001. This review discusses the results of key clinical trials released in 2005 and their potential impact on the guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS: Three major clinical trials, one subgroup analysis, and one meta-analysis were published in 2005 that can potentially affect the existing guidelines. The Treating to New Targets and the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering trials demonstrated the incremental benefit of more aggressive low-density cholesterol lowering in stable coronary heart disease. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis of statin trials supported the importance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction, irrespective of initial lipid profile, in reducing cardiovascular events. A subgroup analysis of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial - Lipid-Lowering Arm demonstrated statin benefits in diabetes, whereas the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes study failed to show overall treatment benefits with a fibrate in diabetes. SUMMARY: Lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol remains central in reducing cardiovascular risk; however, the recent trials support a target of less than 2.0 mmol/l (<80 mg/dl), rather than the less than 1.8 mmol/l (70 mg/dl) suggested by the 2004 update, for all high-risk patients and not, as recommended previously, just for those with additional factors. For individuals with diabetes, recent data support the use of statin therapy, even in those at less than high risk. First-line therapy should remain statins and not fibrates.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.707
GPT teacher head0.625
Teacher spread0.082 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207