Statin Effects on LDL and HDL Cholesterol in South Asian and White Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inasmuch as statins appear to exhibit altered efficacy in some Asian populations (predominantly East Asian), current lipid guidelines recommend the use of lower statin doses in all Asians. Whether this should also apply to South Asians, a population at high risk for coronary heart disease, remains unclear. The authors evaluated the lipid-modifying effects of statins in South Asian and white patients with established coronary heart disease. Atorvastatin (median dose=20 mg/d in both groups) produced similar decreases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) in South Asian (43%) and white (41%) patients and raised high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) by 19% in South Asians and by 12% in whites. Simvastatin (median dose=20 mg/d in both groups) reduced LDL-c by 35% in South Asians and by 37% in whites while raising HDL-c by 12% in both groups. Using a multiple linear regression model (atorvastatin equivalent), the expected decrease in LDL-c for 10 mg atorvastatin and 20 mg atorvastatin was similar between the groups. Results indicate that atorvastatin and simvastatin, at commonly prescribed doses, modulate LDL-c and HDL-c levels to a similar degree in both South Asians and whites with documented coronary heart disease. These findings suggest that South Asian patients may be treated with atorvastatin and simvastatin at doses typically applied to white patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".