Apolipoprotein B improves risk assessment of future coronary heart disease in the Framingham Heart Study beyond LDL-C and non-HDL-C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Analyses using conventional statistical methodologies have yielded conflicting results as to whether low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) or apolipoprotein B (apoB) is the best marker of the apoB-associated risk of coronary heart disease. The aim of this study was to determine the additional value of apoB beyond LDL-C or non-HDL-C as a predictor of coronary heart disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: For each patient from the Framingham Offspring Cohort aged 40-75 years (n = 2966), we calculated the extent to which the observed apoB differed from the expected apoB based on their LDL-C or non-HDL-C. We added this difference to a Cox model predicting new onset coronary heart disease over a maximum of 20 years adjusting for standard risk factors plus LDL-C or non-HDL. The difference between observed and expected apoB over LDL-C or non-HDL-C was highly prognostic of future coronary heart disease events: adjusted hazard ratios 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.15, 1.37) and 1.20 (1.11, 1.29), respectively, for each standard deviation increase beyond expected apoB levels. When this difference between observed and expected apoB was added to standard coronary heart disease prediction models including LDL-C or non-HDL-C, prediction improved significantly (likelihood ratio test p-values <0.0001) and discrimination c-statistics increased from 0.72 to 0.73. The corresponding relative integrated discrimination improvements were 11% and 8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: apoB improves risk assessment of future coronary heart disease events over and beyond LDL-C or non-HDL-C, which is consistent with coronary risk being more closely related to the number of atherogenic apoB particles than to the mass of cholesterol within them.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".