Lipid screening to prevent coronary artery disease: a quantitative evaluation of evolving guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence to support the treatment of abnormal blood lipid levels among people with cardiovascular disease. Primary prevention is problematic because many individuals with lipid abnormalities may never actually develop cardiovascular disease. We evaluated the 1998 Canadian lipid guidelines to determine whether they accurately identify high-risk adults for primary prevention. METHODS: Using data from the Lipid Research Clinics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, we compared the diagnostic performance of the 1998 lipid guidelines when risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD) were counted versus calculating risk using Framingham risk equations. We also compared the diagnostic accuracy of the 1998 guidelines with guidelines previously published by the National Cholesterol Education Program in the United States and the 1988 Canadian Consensus Conference on Cholesterol and then used Canadian Heart Health Survey data to forecast lipid screening and treatment rates for the Canadian population. RESULTS: The Framingham risk equations were more accurate than counting risk factors for predicting CAD risk (areas under the ROC curves, 0.83 [standard deviation (SD) 0.02] v. 0.77 [SD 0.03], p < 0.05). Risk counting was a particularly poor method for predicting risk for women. The 1998 Canadian guidelines identified high-risk individuals more accurately than the earlier guidelines, but the increased accuracy was largely due to a lower false-positive rate or a higher true-negative rate (i.e., increased test specificity). Using the 1998 lipid guidelines we estimate that 5.9 million Canadians currently free of cardiovascular disease would be eligible for lipid screening and 322,705 (5.5%) would require therapy. INTERPRETATION: Calculating risk using risk equations is a more accurate method to identify people at high risk for CAD than counting the number of risk factors present, especially for women, and the 1998 Canadian lipid screening guidelines are significantly better at identifying high-risk patients than the 1988 guidelines. Many of our findings were incorporated into the new 2000 guidelines.
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 | 0.121 | 0.315 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".