Establishing cut-off values for apolipoprotein B and non-HDL-C according to LDL-C values in a South European population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains the primary target of therapy in most strategies of dyslipidaemia management focused on cardiovascular disease prevention. Different guidelines have identified specific LDL-C cut-off points as targets for therapeutic intervention. Many clinical situations characterised by dyslipidaemia and elevated triglycerides are common in our environment and in overall industrialised countries. Thus, lipid goals based only on LDL-C could misclassify an important percentage of subjects. The objective of the present study was to establish cut-off point values for apoB and non-HDL-C in relation to the identified LDL-C cut-off points for cardiovascular risk in a South European population. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study including 1501 subjects (770 women and 731 men) between 18 and 80 years of age. Samples were collected after 12-14 h of fasting. Cholesterol, HDL-C, triglycerides and apoB levels were measured using direct methods. LDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald formula. Non-HDL-C was calculated as total cholesterol minus HDL-C. RESULTS: The Spearman's rank correlations between apoB and LDL-C (r 0.86, p < 0.0001), and between apoB and non-HDL-C (r 0.91, p < 0.0001) were both significant. The proposed cut-off points for apoB, according to LDL-C goals (70, 100, 130 and 160 mg/dl) in our population are 70, 80, 100 and 115 mg/dl respectively. The proposed cut-off values for non-HDL-C are 100, 120, 150 and 190 mg/dl respectively. CONCLUSION: The established LDL-C cut-off values could not be accurate to estimate cardiovascular risk in subjects with mild hypertriglyceridaemia, as frequently occurs in our Mediterranean population. To take into consideration the burden of atherogenic particles and better classify patients at risk we propose cut-off values for apoB or the equivalent for non-HDL-C. Prospective trials including cardiovascular variables are needed to validate our assumption.
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 | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".