Total Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol Ratio vs LDL Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol Ratio as Indices of Ischemic Heart Disease Risk in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total cholesterol (TC)/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)/HDL-C ratios are used to predict ischemic heart disease risk. There is, however, no consensus on which of these 2 indices is superior. The objective of the present study was to present evidence that the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio may underestimate ischemic heart disease risk in overweight hyperinsulinemic patients with high triglyceride (TG)-low HDL-C dyslipidemia. METHODS: A total of 2103 middle-aged men in whom measurements of the metabolic profile were performed in the fasting state were recruited from 7 suburbs of the Quebec metropolitan area. RESULTS: The relationship of LDL-C/HDL-C to TC/HDL-C ratios was examined among men in the Quebec Cardiovascular Study classified into tertiles of fasting TG levels. For any given LDL-C/HDL-C ratio, the TC/HDL-C ratio was higher among men in the top TG tertile (>168 mg/dL [>1.9 mmol/L]) than in men in the first and second TG tertiles. Adjustment of the TC/HDL-C ratio for LDL-C/HDL-C by covariance analysis generated significant differences in average TC/HDL-C ratios among TG tertiles (P<.001). Greater differences in features of the insulin resistance syndrome (insulinemia, apolipoprotein B, and LDL size) were noted across tertiles of the TC/HDL-C ratio than tertiles of the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio. CONCLUSION: Variation in the TC/HDL-C ratio may be associated with more substantial alterations in metabolic indices predictive of ischemic heart disease risk and related to the insulin resistance syndrome than variation in the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".