Does Prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome in Women with Coronary Artery Disease Differ by the ATP III and IDF Criteria?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The definition and prognostic utility of the metabolic syndrome remain controversial. Analyses in predominantly healthy populations suggest that the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) definition identifies more men with metabolic syndrome than the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) criteria, with little difference among women. Whether the IDF definition identifies a greater prevalence of the metabolic syndrome than the ATP III definition in women with coronary artery disease (CAD) is unknown. METHODS: We compared the prevalence and prognostic utility of both definitions of the metabolic syndrome in postmenopausal women with angiographic CAD enrolled in the Women's Angiographic Vitamin and Estrogen Trial (WAVE). We excluded 51 of 423 women enrolled (12%) who had missing data for components of the metabolic syndrome. RESULTS: Mean age was 65.3 +/- 8.4 years, 70% were white, mean body mass index (BMI) was 30.5 +/- 6.0 kg/m(2), mean waist circumference was 96.2 +/- 12.9 cm, 89% had hypertension by history or elevated blood pressure, 58% had diabetes or hyperglycemia, 54% had low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and 44% had hypertriglyceridemia. Metabolic syndrome prevalence was 70% and 74% by ATP III and IDF criteria, respectively; 68% met criteria for both definitions. Classification between the two criteria was not affected by ethnicity or age. Incident cardiovascular events were similar in both metabolic syndrome classifications. CONCLUSIONS: Among postmenopausal women with angiographic CAD, the metabolic syndrome is very prevalent. The IDF modification of the ATP III definition only identifies a small additional number of women as having metabolic syndrome, independent of ethnicity or age, and provides little additional prognostic information.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".