Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides an update and highlights the controversies regarding recent advances and recommendations regarding screening, diagnosis and treatment of children and adolescents with familial hypercholesterolemia. RECENT FINDINGS: Both general cardiovascular risk and specific familial hypercholesterolemia guidelines for children and adolescents have recently been released. Universal lipid screening of children has been recommended, in addition to targeted screening. The role of genetic testing for targeted screening and diagnostic confirmation is less clear. Although lifestyle therapy remains of key importance, increasing evidence of safety and efficacy support the use of statin therapy. Early therapy has been associated with improvements in noninvasive measures of early atherosclerosis in children, which likely can be extrapolated to improved freedom from cardiovascular disease events over the lifespan, as has been observed in adults. The new guidelines provide general and specific recommendations as to how family history and additional risk factors and risk conditions should be incorporated in decisions regarding initiation of statin therapy at LDL-cholesterol cutpoints. Emerging evidence from observational studies are beginning to address concerns regarding the initiation at young ages and longer-term efficacy and safety. SUMMARY: Children and adolescents with familial hypercholesterolemia can be identified and effective therapy with a statin initiated with consideration of the patients' overall cardiovascular risk profile, remaining mindful of the uncertainties regarding long-term safety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".