Apo B versus cholesterol in estimating cardiovascular risk and in guiding therapy: report of the thirty‐person/ten‐country panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is abundant evidence that the risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease is directly related to plasma cholesterol levels. Accordingly, all of the national and transnational screening and therapeutic guidelines are based on total or LDL cholesterol. This presumes that cholesterol is the most important lipoprotein-related proatherogenic risk variable. On the contrary, risk appears to be more directly related to the number of circulating atherogenic particles that contact and enter the arterial wall than to the measured concentration of cholesterol in these lipoprotein fractions. Each of the atherogenic lipoprotein particles contains a single molecule of apolipoprotein (apo) B and therefore the concentration of apo B provides a direct measure of the number of circulating atherogenic lipoproteins. Evidence from fundamental, epidemiological and clinical trial studies indicates that apo B is superior to any of the cholesterol indices to recognize those at increased risk of vascular disease and to judge the adequacy of lipid-lowering therapy. On the basis of this evidence, we believe that apo B should be included in all guidelines as an indicator of cardiovascular risk. In addition, the present target adopted by the Canadian guideline groups of an apo B <90 mg dL(-1) in high-risk patients should be reassessed in the light of the new clinical trial results and a new ultra-low target of <80 mg dL(-1) be considered. The evidence also indicates that the apo B/apo A-I ratio is superior to any of the conventional cholesterol ratios in patients without symptomatic vascular disease or diabetes to evaluate the lipoprotein-related risk of vascular disease.
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 | 0.125 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".