Hypertriglyceridemia: its etiology, effects and treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elevated plasma triglyceride concentration is a common biochemical finding, but the evidence for the benefit of treating this lipid disturbance remains less robust than that for treating elevated low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol. Part of the difficulty in the provision of specific recommendations has been the frequent coexistence of elevated triglycerides with other conditions that affect cardiovascular disease risk, such as depressed high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, obesity, metabolic syndrome, proinflammatory and prothrombotic biomarkers, and type 2 diabetes. Recent investigations of outcomes of cardiovascular disease when medications are used to reduce triglyceride levels suggest that, although a net benefit probably exists, both relative and absolute risk reductions seem underwhelming when compared with the benefit of reducing low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels with treatment. However, the totality of evidence suggests that elevated triglyceride levels likely contribute independently to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, although there is no consensus about appropriate target levels. Furthermore, severe hypertriglyceridemia is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis, irrespective of its effect on risk of cardiovascular disease. We review the causes and classification of elevated triglyceride levels, the clinical manifestations of primary hypertriglyceridemia and the management of patients with elevated triglyceride levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".