MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108475045 · doi:10.1136/bmj.b92

Association between change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: systematic review and meta-regression analysis

2009· review· en· W2108475045 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthias Briel, Ignacio Ferreira‐González, John J. You, P. J Karanicolas, Elie Akl, Ping Wu, Boris Blechacz, Dirk Bassler, Asheer Sharman, Irene Whitt, S. Alves da Silva, Zara Khalid, Alain Nordmann, Qi Zhou, Stephen D. Walter, Noah Vale, Neera Bhatnagar, C. O’Regan, Edward J. Mills, Heiner C. Bucher, Víctor M. Montori, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalCanadian College of Naturopathic MedicineWestern UniversityMcMaster University
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CarePfizer
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineCholesterolMeta-analysisMeta-regressionHigh-density lipoproteinLipoproteinCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between treatment induced change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and total death, coronary heart disease death, and coronary heart disease events (coronary heart disease death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) adjusted for changes in low density lipoprotein cholesterol and drug class in randomised trials of lipid modifying interventions. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Central, CINAHL, and AMED to October 2006 supplemented by contact with experts in the field. STUDY SELECTION: In teams of two, reviewers independently determined eligibility of randomised trials that tested lipid modifying interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk, reported high density lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality or myocardial infarctions separately for treatment groups, and treated and followed participants for at least six months. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Using standardised, pre-piloted forms, reviewers independently extracted relevant information from each article. The change in lipid concentrations for each trial and the weighted risk ratios for clinical outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: The meta-regression analysis included 108 randomised trials involving 299 310 participants at risk of cardiovascular events. All analyses that adjusted for changes in low density lipoprotein cholesterol showed no association between treatment induced change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and risk ratios for coronary heart disease deaths, coronary heart disease events, or total deaths. With all trials included, change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol explained almost no variability (<1%) in any of the outcomes. The change in the quotient of low density lipoprotein cholesterol and high density lipoprotein cholesterol did not explain more of the variability in any of the outcomes than did the change in low density lipoprotein cholesterol alone. For a 10 mg/dl (0.26 mmol/l) reduction in low density lipoprotein cholesterol, the relative risk reduction was 7.2% (95% confidence interval 3.1% to 11%; P=0.001) for coronary heart disease deaths, 7.1% (4.5% to 9.8%; P<0.001) for coronary heart disease events, and 4.4% (1.6% to 7.2%; P=0.002) for total deaths, when adjusted for change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and drug class. CONCLUSIONS: Available data suggest that simply increasing the amount of circulating high density lipoprotein cholesterol does not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease events, coronary heart disease deaths, or total deaths. The results support reduction in low density lipoprotein cholesterol as the primary goal for lipid modifying interventions.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.051
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations490
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207