MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W187111296

National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines and obesity: implications for Canada.

2003· article· en· W187111296 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher I. Ardern, Peter T. Katzmarzyk

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverweightObesityNational Cholesterol Education ProgramBody mass indexPopulationDemographyGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthMetabolic syndrome
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III recommendations incorporate new evidence for treating elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. OBJECTIVES: Comparisons between the prevalence of drug-eligible Canadians under the old ATP II and the new ATP III guidelines were made, and the impact of obesity on current and future drug eligibility was explored using various models. METHODS: Participants from the Canadian Heart Health Surveys (1986 to 1992; n=17,728; 20 to 74 years of age) were assigned to therapeutic lifestyle change or drug-eligible groups in the event of elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Body mass index was used to classify participants as having normal weight, or as being overweight or obese. The prevalence of overweight and obese status for 2001, 2006 and 2011 were projected from past trends by linear regression. Population attributable risk was used to model reductions or increases in the prevalence of obesity in drug-eligible participants using several nationally representative population health surveys. RESULTS: In 2001, an additional 1.1 million Canadians were drug-eligible under ATP III (16.0% of men, 9.5% of women), compared with ATP II (7.7% of men, 7.7% of women). Drug eligibility was elevated in overweight participants (men: OR=1.87 [1.51 to 2.31]; women: OR=1.60 [1.13 to 2.28]) and the obese (men: OR=2.86 [1.86 to 4.38]; women: OR=2.28 [1.63 to 3.18]) versus normal weight participants. The population attributable risk was higher in men (overweight 22.6%, obese 11.5%) than in women (overweight 9.4%, obese 9.2%). IMPLICATIONS: A 10% reduction in overweight and obesity prevalence could have prevented 69,530 cases of drug eligibility in 2001. On the other hand, by 2011 over one million Canadians will be drug-eligible because of an elevated body mass index, if the recent trends in overweight and obese status continue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentFrench-language works237,207