Conventional Lipid Profile and Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations in Treated Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased cardiovascular risk not completely explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors. If the proatherogenic lipid profile observed in active and untreated RA improves by effectively treating RA without the use of a lipid-lowering agent, other nonconventional cardiovascular lipid risk factors may be implicated. We evaluated conventional lipid risk factors and lipoprotein(a) in treated patients with RA. Methods. This cross-sectional study was conducted in 122 patients with RA. Lipid profiles of patients were compared with a control group, consisting of a population-based study cohort (DRECE study), matched for sex, age, menopausal status, and body mass index. Excess lipoprotein(a) was defined by a serum concentration > 0.3 g/l. Results. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) concentrations were higher in pre- and postmenopausal women with RA than in controls (p = 0.023 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively). All RA patients had significantly lower levels of apolipoprotein B and apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A-I ratio, and postmenopausal women with RA also had significantly lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol levels than their respective controls. No differences were observed in serum levels of apolipoprotein A-I and triglyceride. All RA patients had higher lipoprotein(a) values than controls. Fourteen men (56%) and 10 (53%) and 42 (54%) pre- and postmenopausal women with RA, respectively, had hyperlipoproteinemia(a). Conclusion. RA patients undergoing antirheumatic therapy display a nonatherogenic conventional lipid profile, i.e., high HDL-c, low apolipoprotein B concentrations, and low apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A-I ratio. This may be counteracted by the high prevalence of hyperlipoproteinemia(a) observed in these patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".