Metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus, or both and cardiovascular risk in outpatients with or at risk for atherothrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of metabolic syndrome (MetS), diabetes mellitus (DM), and their coexistence is increasing but whether MetS increases cardiovascular risk beyond component risk factors is controversial. DESIGN: We compared the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke among patients with MetS, newly detected DM, established DM, or coexistent MetS and DM in the global REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry. METHODS: Outpatients with or at risk for atherothrombosis were recruited between 1 December 2003 and 31 December 2004 and followed up to 4 years for cardiovascular events. Risk was compared in patients with or without MetS or DM after adjustment for age, sex, risk factors, vascular disease, fasting blood glucose, therapy, and region. RESULTS: Among 44,548 REACH participants, 17,887 (40%) were without MetS or DM; 6459 had MetS (15%); 12,059 had established DM (27%); 7503 had both (17%); and 640 had newly detected DM (1%). Presence of MetS was not associated with higher cardiovascular events (12.6%, adjusted HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.08). In addition, once DM was evident, patients with coexistent MetS had similar increased risk (16.1%, adjusted HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21-1.47) as DM alone (16.7%, adjusted HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.24-1.48). Newly detected DM was associated with increased cardiovascular risk (18.5%, adjusted HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.57), similar to longstanding DM. MetS was associated with incident DM (adjusted OR 1.94). CONCLUSIONS: In the REACH registry, presence of newly detected DM but not metabolic syndrome was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".