MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117216433 · doi:10.1185/030079905x59102

Statins and LDL‐cholesterol lowering: an overview

2005· review· en· W2117216433 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Society of CardiologyUniversity of WaterlooMerck KGaA
KeywordsMedicineLdl cholesterolCholesterolCholesterol loweringEzetimibePharmacologyAtorvastatinStatinInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statins have become a cornerstone of treatment for dyslipidaemia primarily due to their marked lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Studies show that statin treatment typically reduces relative risk of cardiovascular disease by 24-37%, regardless of age, sex, prior history of coronary heart disease (CHD), or other co-morbid conditions. There is also a growing body of evidence that statins can be effective in people whose LDL-C is not considered elevated under current guidelines. In both the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) and the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS), participants randomised to atorvastatin (10 mg/day) experienced at least a one-third reduction in major cardiovascular events, even though at baseline, their LDL-C was within the normal range. Other studies have also provided evidence that more intensive lipid-lowering regimens could provide additional clinical benefits. In the Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering (REVERSAL) trial, the first active-control clinical trial of CHD progression, an intensive lipid-lowering regimen using atorvastatin (80 mg/day) decreased atherogenic lipoproteins and atheroma volume in patients with established CHD, compared with a moderate regimen using pravastatin (40 mg/day). Furthermore, relative to baseline, there was no measurable atheroma progression in the atorvastatin group. While statin therapy does offer significant clinical benefit, 60-70% of major cardiovascular events are still not prevented, which underscores the need for alternative interventions. Targeting inflammatory mediators of atherosclerosis such as C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as combination therapy to simultaneously raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and lower LDL-C, are among the promising new strategies for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic disease. This article will summarise data concerning use of statins in patients without markedly elevated LDL-C. The issue of the ideal LDL-C target will also be considered before addressing future treatment options for dyslipidaemia.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.159 · 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