MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104106610

Homocysteine, vitamins, and coronary artery disease. Comprehensive review of the literature.

2000· article· en· W2104106610 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Taylor, Gavin Y. Oudit, Matt Evans

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomocysteineMedicineCoronary artery diseaseVitamin B12B vitaminsInternal medicineProspective cohort studyCohort studyRetrospective cohort studyFolic acidRandomized controlled trialSurgeryGastroenterology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207