MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162616258 · doi:10.1586/erc.12.21

Diagnosis and treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia

2012· review· en· W2162616258 on OpenAlexaff
Adie Viljoen, Anthony S. Wierzbicki

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipid metabolism and disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypertriglyceridemiaLipoprotein lipaseMedicineMicrosomal triglyceride transfer proteinNiacinInternal medicineInsulin resistanceEndocrinologyPancreatitisTriglycerideLipoproteinInsulinCholesterolAdipose tissueVery low-density lipoprotein

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe hypertriglyceridemia is associated with acute pancreatitis and can be a manifestation of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) deficiency. It is associated with a spectrum of disorders, ranging from heterozygous LPL deficiency allied with environmental factors to rare severe cases of homozygous LPL deficiency. The genes associated with reduced LPL activity include LPL, its cofactor apoC-2, a controlling protein apoA-5 and the LPL receptor GPI-HBP1. The effects of mutations are exacerbated by environmental factors such as diet, pregnancy and insulin resistance. Treatment of clinical LPL deficiency is by ultra-low-fat diet along with the use of fibrates, omega-3 fatty acids, niacin, statins and insulin-sensitizing therapies, depending on the extent of residual LPL activity. Novel therapies that target lipoprotein particle assembly through the antisense oligonucleotides or by interference with triglyceride-loading microsomal transport protein inhibitors offer new potential options for treating hypertriglyceridemia.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicLipid metabolism and disordersFrench-language works237,207