MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067266696 · doi:10.1097/mol.0000000000000161

HDL re-examined

2015· review· en· W2067266696 on OpenAlexafffund
G. Kees Hovingh, Daniel J. Rader, Robert A. Hegele

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Lipidology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDiseaseMedicineClinical trialPopulationInternal medicineRisk factorBioinformaticsBiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the current evidence concerning the role of HDL-C and HDL-associated parameters in the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous population studies have shown that plasma levels of HDL-C are inversely associated with CVD risk; in patient care HDL-C levels are therefore widely implemented in risk estimation models. A number of antiatherogenic properties have been ascribed to the HDL particle, but the hypothesis that HDL is causally related to CVD has been seriously challenged by recent data obtained from both human genetic studies and clinical trials. The final word on HDL-C as a therapeutic target is pending, as a number of clinical endpoint trials specifically focusing on the effect(s) of HDL-C increasing agents are underway. Moreover, recent data show that HDL efflux capacity could hold independent predictive value for CVD events, which clearly highlights the potential need to focus on HDL functionality, rather than on HDL-C levels. SUMMARY: The dogmatic concept that HDL-C levels predict future CVD events is undisputed, but the role of HDL-C as a causal factor in atherosclerosis has been challenged by a number of different types of studies. In recent years, a paradigm shift toward 'HDL functionality' is apparent. Whether or not optimizing these markers of HDL functionality actually does reduce CVD risk requires formal testing in prospective controlled studies.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations45
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in LipidologySame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207