MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966307825 · doi:10.14797/mdcj-10-1-7

Genetics of Coronary Artery Disease: An Update

2014· review· en· W1966307825 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineWebcastMEDLINECoronary artery diseaseMedical educationCardiologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2007, the first genetic risk variant, 9p21, was simultaneously discovered by two independent groups. 9p21 increases the risk of coronary artery disease in individuals with premature heart disease by twofold, and in the overall population the heterozygote is associated with a 25% increased risk and the homozygote with a 50% increased risk. It is of note that the risk mediated by 9p21 is independent of known risk factors. Since then, with the development of new technologies and the international consortium of CARDIoGRAM, there is now a total of 50 genetic risk variants confirmed and replicated for CAD. Of these 50, 35 mediate their risk by unknown mechanisms, indicating that the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction is due to additional factors as yet unknown. The role of genetic risk factors in the management of CAD is yet to be determined. Since many of them are independent of known risk factors, the genetic risk will in the future have to be incorporated into the guidelines, which recommend the target level of plasma LDL-C to be achieved based on the number of 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodist DeBakey Cardiovascular JournalSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207