MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132069074 · doi:10.1194/jlr.m034132

Rare APOA5 promoter variants associated with paradoxical HDL cholesterol decrease in response to fenofibric acid therapy

2013· article· en· W2132069074 on OpenAlexaff
Ariel Brautbar, Maja Barbalić, Fengju Chen, John W. Belmont, Salim S. Virani, Robert A. Hegele, Christie M. Ballantyne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lipid Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyslipidemiaMedicineInternal medicineCholesterolEndocrinologyCholesterylester transfer proteinFenofibrateCombination therapyPharmacologyLipoproteinObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with mixed dyslipidemia, including high triglycerides (TGs) and low high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), have increased risk for coronary events. We examined the effect of rare genetic variants in the APOA5 gene region on plasma HDL-C, apolipoprotein A-I (apoA-I), and TG response to fenofibric acid monotherapy and in combination with statins. The APOA5 gene region was sequenced in 1,612 individuals with mixed dyslipidemia in a randomized trial of fenofibric acid alone and in combination with statins. Student's t-test and rare variant burden tests were used to examine plasma HDL-C, apoA-I, and TG response. Rare APOA5 promoter region variants were associated with decreased HDL-C and apoA-I levels in response to fenofibric acid therapy; rare missense variants were associated with increased TG response to combination therapy. Further study is needed to examine the effect of these rare variants on coronary outcomes in this population in response to fenofibric acid monotherapy or combined with statins.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lipid ResearchSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207