MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality

2004· article· en· W2083147006 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris I. Ardern, Peter T. Katzmarzyk, Ian Janssen, Timothy S. Church, Steven N. Blair

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessInternal medicineFramingham Risk ScoreProportional hazards modelDiabetes mellitusCholesterolDiseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

0930 PURPOSE: To explore the impact of Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) LDLcholesterol levels and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. METHODS: Blood lipid, anthropometric, and blood glucose measurements were taken on 19,155 men (ages 20–75 y) from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study. CRF was assessed using a maximal treadmill test, and ageadjusted CRF (METS) was used to classify men as physically unfit (lowest quintile) or fit (upper four quintiles). ATP III clinical guidelines targeting LDL cholesterol were applied to identify eligibility for cholesterol intervention (normal LDL, therapeutic lifestyle change (TLC), and drug-therapy), based on the total number of traditional cardiovascular risk factors present, the 10-year Framingham risk of a coronary event, and the presence of diabetes or a previous coronary event. CVD mortality risk was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: There were 187 CVD deaths over an average follow-up of 10.2 y. Across normal LDL, TLC, and drugtherapy categories, the CVD death rates were 4, 7, and 21 per 10,000 man-years of follow-up, respectively, after adjustment for year of clinical examination. Compared with the normal LDL group, TLC, and drug-therapy eligible men were at elevated risk of CVD-mortality (TLC: RR = 1.87, 95% C.I.: 1.12–3.14; drug-therapy: 5.96, 4.03–8.81). After inclusion of CRF in the model the risk was attenuated in both the TLC (1.40, 0.83–2.34) and drug-therapy (2.69, 1.79–4.03) groups. Compared with fit men with normal LDL (RR = 1.00), there was a higher CVD-mortality risk in normal LDL/unfit (4.75, 2.23–10.09), TLC/fit (1.75, 0.92–3.36), TLC/unfit (6.46, 3.11–13.42), drugtherapy/fit (6.15, 3.80–9.95), and drug-therapy/unfit (13.95, 8.41–23.16) categories. CONCLUSION: In men eligible for either TLC or drug-therapy under ATP III guidelines, CRF is associated with substantially lower risk of CVD-mortality. Supported by grants AG06945 from the National Institute on Aging and T4945 from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→