MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130631529 · doi:10.1586/erc.10.4

High-density lipoproteins and cardiovascular disease: 2010 update

2010· review· en· W2130631529 on OpenAlexaff
Khalid Al‐Rasadi, Zuhier Awan, Ali Alshahrani, Jacques Genest

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMendelian randomizationMedicineNiacinReverse cholesterol transportCholesterolInternal medicineLipoproteinDiseaseEndocrinologyHigh-density lipoproteinApolipoprotein BTangier diseaseAtherosclerotic cardiovascular diseaseBioinformaticsABCA1BiochemistryTransporterGenetic variantsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) is a continuous inverse cardiovascular risk factor. The mechanisms by which HDLs protect against atherosclerosis are multiple. The major effect is thought to be reverse cholesterol transport, the mechanism by which excess cellular cholesterol is returned to the liver for excretion in the bile. HDLs also have pleiotropic roles: they decrease inflammation, prevent low-density lipoprotein oxidation, vascular endothelial cell apoptosis and thrombosis, and improve vascular endothelial function. Recent studies suggest that nascent HDL particles are metabolized rapidly and that their components (Apo AI, cholesterol and phospholipids) are rapidly exchanged within lipoprotein classes. There are many causes of HDL-C deficiency. Using Mendelian randomization, several groups have concluded that many genetic forms of HDL deficiency do not increase cardiovascular risk. This raises the controversial issue of the causality of low HDL-C as a cardiovascular risk factor, rather than a marker of cardiovascular health. This is reflected in the importance of lifestyle in determining HDL-C levels. The treatment of low HDL-C remains controversial, in part because the only currently available effective medication, niacin, is relatively poorly tolerated and outcomes studies on cardiovascular disease prevention are still pending.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.035
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.270 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207