MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008879022 · doi:10.1097/hco.0b013e328353adc1

Triglycerides

2012· review· en· W2008879022 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony S. Wierzbicki, R. Clarke, Adie Viljoen, Dimitri P. Mikhailidis

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the relevance of triglycerides to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. RECENT FINDINGS: Triglycerides are a commonly measured component of lipid profiles. Raised triglycerides are a component of the metabolic syndrome and are strongly associated with future risk of diabetes as well as cardiovascular disease. Triglyceride-rich particles form a component of cardiovascular risk above that delineated by low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Elevated triglycerides are a marker of atherogenic small dense LDL, excess baseline and residual CVD risk even after statin therapy. Additional methods to lower triglycerides include niacin, fibrates and omega-3 fatty acids. Trials in monotherapy with both niacin and fibrates suggest some benefit in reducing CVD events based on evidence mostly derived from older studies. However, endpoint trials of adding either niacin or fenofibrate to statins have not shown any benefit, except possibly in patients with an increased atherogenic index (triglyceride : HDL-C ratio), or have been underpowered. Trials of omega-3 fatty acids have been performed at doses insufficient to affect lipid profiles in populations with inadequate control of LDL-C but did reduce CVD events. SUMMARY: Further trials of lipid-lowering agents beyond statins will be required in patients with LDL-C adequately controlled on statin therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.214
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207