Comparing Guidelines for Statin Treatment in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New guidelines for cardiovascular disease risk assessment and statin eligibility have recently been published in the United States by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC-AHA). It is unknown how these guidelines compare with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) recommendations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey 2007-2011, we estimated the cardiovascular disease risk and proportion of the Canadian population, aged 40 to 75 years without cardiovascular disease, who would theoretically be eligible for statin treatment under both the CCS and ACC-AHA guidelines. The survey sample used (n=1975) represented 13.1 million community dwelling Canadians between the ages of 40 and 75 years. In comparing the CVD risk assessment methods, we found that calculated CVD risk was higher based on the CCS guidelines compared with the ACC-AHA guidelines. Despite this, a similar proportion and number of Canadians would be eligible for statin treatment under the 2 sets of recommendations. Some discordance in recommendations was found within subgroups of the population, with the CCS guidelines recommending more treatment for individuals who are younger, with a family history of CVD, or with chronic kidney disease. The ACC-AHA recommend more treatment for people who are older (age 60+ years). These results likely overestimate the treatment rate under both guidelines because, in primary prevention, a clinician-patient discussion must occur before treatment and determines uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the ACC-AHA lipid treatment guidelines in Canada would not result in an increase in individuals eligible for statin treatment. In fact, the proportion of the population recommended for statin treatment would decrease slightly and be targeted at different subgroups of the population.
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 | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".