Homocysteine, vitamins, and coronary artery disease. Comprehensive review of the literature.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize results of clinical trials investigating the role of homocysteine (tHcy) as a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and the role of vitamin therapy (folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12) in primary and secondary prevention of CAD. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE was searched from January 1976 to January 1999 to locate cross-sectional, retrospective and prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses on CAD using the MeSH words homocysteine, folic acid, vitamins B6 and B12, and coronary artery or heart disease. MAIN MESSAGE: Elevated tHcy levels are prevalent; most retrospective and cross-sectional studies show an association with increased risk of CAD. Results from recent prospective studies are less consistent. Folic acid, alone or with vitamins B6 and B12, reduces tHcy concentrations in the blood. Results from ongoing randomized controlled trials could determine the effect of vitamins B6 and B12 and folic acid supplementation on CAD-related morbidity and mortality and could indicate whether routine supplementation with these vitamins should be advocated. Before mass screening for tHcy can be done, the tHcy assay must be standardized. CONCLUSION: The role of homocysteine and vitamins B6 and B12 in managing CAD is unclear. Routine screening is not recommended.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".