Cholesterol levels in small LDL particles predict the risk of coronary heart disease in the EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the association of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in small and large LDL particles with risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospective case-control study nested in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort. Cases were apparently healthy men and women aged 45-79 years who developed fatal or non-fatal CHD (n = 1035), and who were matched by age, gender, and enrollment time to 1920 controls who remained free of CHD. Electrophoretic characteristics of LDL particles were measured using 2-16% polyacrylamide gradient gel electrophoresis. Concentrations of LDL-C(<255 A) were higher in cases than controls in men (1.34 +/- 0.88 vs. 1.15 +/- 0.80 mmol/L, P < 0.001) as well as in women (1.12 +/- 0.84 vs. 0.94 +/- 0.74 mmol/L, P < 0.001). The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for future CHD in men of the top tertile of LDL-C(<255 A) was 1.68 (95% CI, 1.33-2.13; P < 0.001) whereas in women the unadjusted OR was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.13-2.07; P < 0.001). However, after further adjustments for confounding variables, the association between LDL-C(<255 A) and CHD was no longer significant in men and in women. CONCLUSION: Cholesterol concentrations in different LDL subclasses show different relationships with CHD risk in this European cohort.
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 | 0.008 | 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".