MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Apolipoprotein B Versus Non–High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

2005· letter· en· W2136837197 on OpenAlexaff
Allan D. Sniderman

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertriglyceridemiaApolipoprotein BCholesterolLipoproteinInternal medicineDiseaseEndocrinologyTriglyceride

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ascular disease is already the most common cause of death in the developed world and by 2020 will become the leading cause of death in the developing world as well. 1 No society can afford to offer everyone every therapy.Accordingly, improving the identification of individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular disease to receive preventive therapy must be one of our highest priorities.The study by Pischon and colleagues, 2 which appears in this issue of Circulation and which demonstrates that apolipoprotein B (apoB) is superior to non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) to identify the risk of vascular events, represents an important step forward in this process.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0530.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.007

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations66
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207