Relationship between apolipoprotein(a) size polymorphism and coronary heart disease in overweight subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overweight is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk which is only partially explained by conventional risk factors. The objective of this study was to evaluate lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] plasma levels and apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] phenotypes in relation to coronary heart disease (CHD) in overweight subjects. METHODS: A total of 275 overweight (BMI > or = 27 kg/m2) subjects, of which 155 had experienced a CHD event, 337 normal weight subjects with prior CHD and 103 CHD-free normal weight subjects were enrolled in the study. Lp(a) levels were determined by an ELISA technique and apo(a) isoforms were detected by a high-resolution immunoblotting method. RESULTS: Lp(a) levels were similar in the three study groups. Overweight subjects with CHD had Lp(a) concentrations significantly higher than those without [median (interquartile range): 20 (5-50.3) versus 12.6 (2.6-38.6) mg/dl, P < 0.05]. Furthermore, overweight subjects with CHD showed a higher prevalence of low molecular weight apo(a) isoforms than those without (55.5% versus 40.8%, P < 0.05) and with respect to the control group (55.5% versus 39.8%, P < 0.05). Stepwise regression analysis showed that apo(a) phenotypes, but not Lp(a) levels, entered the model as significant independent predictors of CHD in overweight subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that small-sized apo(a) isoforms are associated with CHD in overweight subjects. The characterization of apo(a) phenotypes might serve as a reliable biomarker to better assess the overall CHD risk of each subject with elevated BMI, leading to more intensive treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".