A questionnaire assessment of physical function in hyperlipidemic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A spectrum of myopathic manifestations has been recognized as associated with lipid lowering drug therapy (LLT), but their effect on quality of life and physical functioning is uncertain. We conducted a prospective cohort study in which physical functioning was the dependent variable, in patients with and without exposure to LLT. METHODS: Consecutive patients attending a risk reduction clinic were invited to participate in a questionnaire study which included demographic data, muscular symptoms, the SF-36 Physical Function Score (PF), and the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ). Laboratory and co-morbidity data was recorded. RESULTS: Of 117 consecutive patients invited to participate, 112 consented. Of these, 81 were receiving statins and/or fibrates as LLT and 31 were participating in a non-pharmacologic therapeutic program (NPT) of diet and exercise therapy. The mean age for the total population was 56.7 years (20-78): the LLT group 58.6 and NPT group 51.9 years. Women comprised 53% of the LLT group and 58% of the NPT. No significant differences in baseline lipid profiles, CK level, BMI, waist measurement, gender, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or acetaminophen use, frequency of myalgias, SF-36 PF or mHAQ scores were observed between groups. On comparison of gender groups, we observed that men receiving LLT had significantly better SF- 36 PF (p = 0.037) than men on NPT. There were no differences in SF-36 PF or mHAQ scores between groups for females. CONCLUSION: We found no adverse effects of LLT on physical functioning or quality of life. Indeed, men treated with LLT had significantly better SF-36 PF scores than men treated non-pharmacologically.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".