Abstract 472: Prevalence of Fredrickson-Levy Dyslipidemia Phenotypes at Extreme HDL-C Levels: The Very Large Database of Lipids (VLDL-9B)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Big data techniques offer a novel opportunity to characterize individuals with extreme phenotypes. In this context, we aimed to describe the prevalence of classical Fredrickson-Levy dyslipidemia phenotypes at the extremes of HDL-C levels in a cross-sectional big data study. Methods: We examined 848,801 U.S. adults and children from the Very Large Database of Lipids 1.0 who were referred for lipoprotein testing from 2009 to 2011. We categorized patients into HDL-C percentile categories (<0.1th, 0.1th to 99th to 99.9th, and >99.9th). We examined the prevalence of Fredrickson-Levy dyslipidemia phenotypes (I, IIa, IIb, III, IV and V) within these categories. We identified those who did not meet criteria for any classical dyslipidemia phenotype as the continuum group. Results: Type I and V were mostly present at extremely low HDL-C levels. Type IIa was more prevalent in high vs. low HDL-C levels. Type III was 2-fold more prevalent in extremely low vs. high HDL-C levels. Type IV was the most prevalent classical dyslipidemia phenotype in our population, and was the most frequent at low HDL-C percentiles. About 50% of the extremely low and 90% of the extremely high HDL-C levels were classified into the continuum group. Conclusion: In our cross-sectional big data analysis, there was a significantly higher prevalence of most classical dyslipidemia phenotypes at extremely low HDL-C compared with extremely high HDL-C levels. Only types I and V were more prevalent in extreme groups than general population. To some extent, very low HDL-C levels may be determined by inheritable, highly atherogenic dyslipidemias.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".