MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Revised Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality in Men Attending a Preventive Medical Clinic

2005· article· en· W2125439260 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris I. Ardern, Peter T. Katzmarzyk, Ian Janssen, Timothy S. Church, Steven N. Blair

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitute of Gender and HealthNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessDiseaseInternal medicineProportional hazards modelDrugRisk factorPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines recommend therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLC) and drug therapy to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. These guidelines have been revised recently (ATP III-R); however, the risk of CVD mortality within each intervention window and the effects of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and metabolic syndrome on CVD mortality within the framework of the guidelines are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Risk factor and CRF data from 19,125 men (aged 20 to 79 years) who attended a preventive medical clinic between 1979 and 1995 were used. Mortality follow-up was completed until December 31, 1996. Participants were assigned to ATP III-R groups (LDL-C goal, TLC initiation, and drug consideration), and risk of CVD mortality was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. There were 179 CVD deaths over an average 10.2 years of follow-up. Compared with the LDL-C goal group, men in the TLC initiation and drug consideration groups had an elevated risk of CVD mortality (TLC initiation: HR=2.65, 95% CI 1.67 to 4.19; drug consideration: HR=6.44, 95% CI 4.49 to 9.25). Compared with LDL-C goal/fit, CVD mortality risk was higher in the LDL-C goal/unfit (4.8, 2.5 to 9.1), TLC initiation/fit (3.0, 1.7 to 5.3), TLC initiation/unfit (7.5, 3.7 to 15.2), drug consideration/fit (7.2, 4.6 to 11.4), and drug consideration/unfit (14.9, 9.1 to 24.4) groups. A similar gradient was observed for metabolic syndrome across intervention windows. CONCLUSIONS: Men eligible for TLC or drug consideration under ATP III-R were at elevated risk of CVD mortality compared with men who met the LDL-C goal. Furthermore, men who were physically fit or who did not have the metabolic syndrome had a lower risk of CVD mortality.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations47
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207