Non‐<scp>HDL</scp> cholesterol vs. Apo B for risk of coronary heart disease in healthy individuals: the <scp>EPIC</scp>‐Norfolk prospective population study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate about the performance of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared with apolipoprotein B (apo B) in the prediction of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. Therefore, we compared the associations between non-HDL-C and apo B in regard to CHD among apparently healthy Western European individuals. DESIGN: In the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Norfolk prospective population study, 25,639 men and women aged 45-79 years were followed for 11·4 ± 2·8 years. Those with diabetes or prevalent CHD at baseline were excluded. A total of 2066 (12·1%) participants developed CHD during 195 692 person-years follow-up. RESULTS: The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of future CHD per one standard deviation increase was 1·22 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1·17-1·27] for LDL-C, 1·26 (95% CI 1·20-1·31) for non-HDL-C and 1·19 (95% CI 1·14-1·24) for apo B, respectively. The multivariable-adjusted HR of future CHD in the highest quartile LDL-C was 1·67 (95% CI: 1·47-1·91). For non-HDL-C and apo B, these respective HRs were 1·87 (95% CI: 1·62-2·15) and 1·56 (95% CI: 1·36-1·78). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that there was incremental and comparable increase in risk of CHD with increasing quartiles of both non-HDL-C and apo B. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, non-HDL-C and apo B were comparable in their ability to predict risk of future CHD.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it