MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114234310

Practical use of the Framingham risk score in primary prevention: Canadian perspective.

2011· article· en· W2114234310 on OpenAlexaffabout
N. John Bosomworth

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStatinJournal clubRandomized controlled trialFramingham Risk ScoreFamily medicinePrimary preventionGuidelineMEDLINECanadian Cardiovascular SocietyDiseaseClinical trialPhysical therapyInternal medicinePathologyAngina
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the 2009 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines and provide practical recommendations for physicians. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Initial review of the references provided with the guidelines led to a search of the PubMed, ACP Journal Club, and Cochrane databases using the key words primary prevention and statin for English language clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and reviews conducted with human participants. References from appropriate retrieved articles were also reviewed. MAIN MESSAGE: The guidelines outline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) thresholds and targets to inform optimal use of statins in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Family history of CVD and levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) are risk modifiers in calculating the risk score with the new recommendations. An electronic calculator has been developed to facilitate increased uptake of these guidelines. Large numbers of asymptomatic people, particularly the elderly, will become eligible for statin therapy according to these new guidelines. Poor uptake by physicians and patients might result from the need for repeated testing of hsCRP and LDL-C levels in people who do not perceive themselves to be ill. Controversy persists concerning the role of hsCRP in the reclassification of CVD risk, and the concept of treating LDL-C to target has never been tested as an independent variable in a randomized trial. As two-thirds of the LDL-C lowering achieved by a statin occurs at the initial dose, it might be possible to achieve considerable CVD risk reduction for those at risk by treating initially with a mid-dose statin without LDL-C follow-up. CONCLUSION: A simplified approach might appeal to patients or physicians who find current guidelines too complex, cumbersome, or costly. Success in getting high-risk patients to take statins is key to achieving improved CVD mortality reduction.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
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 score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations78
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207