Lipid assessment, metabolic syndrome and coronary heart disease risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the total to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (TC/HDL-C) has been used for decades to identify individuals at risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), apolipoprotein-based (apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A-I [apoB/apoA-I]) and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR)-based lipoprotein concentrations (low-density lipoprotein(NMR) /high-density lipoprotein(NMR) [LDL(NMR) /HDL(NMR)]) may also be useful for CHD risk stratification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a case-control study conducted within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Norfolk study population, 870 individuals who developed CHD during a 6-year follow-up were matched to 1659 controls on the basis of gender, age and enrollment time. LDL(NMR) and HDL(NMR) were measured by proton NMR spectroscopy. RESULTS: After adjusting for traditional CHD risk factors, men in the top quintile of the various lipoprotein ratios proved to be at increased CHD risk (OR = 2·59 [95% IC, 1·76-3·83] for TC/HDL-C ratio, 2·59 [1·75-3·83] for apoB/apoA-I ratio and 2·78 [1·86-4·17] for LDL(NMR) /HDL(NMR) ratio) compared with men in the bottom quintile. Similar associations were observed in women (OR = 2·86 [1·71-4·80] for TC/HDL-C ratio, 2·94 [1·74-4·97] for apoB/apoA-I ratio and 2·03 [1·21-3·43] for LDL(NMR)/HDL(NMR) ratio). Compared with participants with only one component of the metabolic syndrome, those who had five had an increased TC/HDL-C ratio (73·0% and 80·4% in men and women respectively), apoB/apoA-I ratio (58·0% and 62·9% in men and women respectively) and for LDL(NMR)/HDL(NMR) ratio (52·6% and 54·1% in men and women respectively). CONCLUSION: In this European study population, the TC/HDL-C, apoB/apoA-I and LDL(NMR) /HDL(NMR) ratios were similarly associated with components of the metabolic syndrome and CHD risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".