Risk factors for coronary heart disease in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: The Toronto Risk Factor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Because women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are 5-8 times more likely to develop coronary heart disease (CHD) than are women in the general population, we assessed the prevalence of classic risk factors for CHD in women with SLE. METHODS: Consecutive female patients with SLE who were without evidence of CHD and were attending a large lupus clinic in Toronto were studied. The control population was recruited from among age-matched subjects attending a family practice unit for an annual physical examination. The prevalence of classic CHD risk factors and the 10-year risk of a CHD-related event were determined using the Framingham risk assessment formula. Lipid subfractions, other metabolic risk factors, lifestyle variables, and demographic characteristics were also compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: We studied 250 SLE patients and 250 controls whose mean +/- SD age was 44.8 +/- 12 years and 44.3 +/- 15 years, respectively. Hypertension and diabetes were significantly more common among the SLE patients. Although the SLE patients had a higher mean number of CHD risk factors per patient, the 10-year risk of a CHD-related event, using the Framingham multiple risk factor assessment, was the same in SLE patients and controls (3.2%). Compared with controls, SLE patients had higher levels of very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total triglycerides, and had higher levels of homocysteine despite having higher folate levels. Premature menopause, sedentary lifestyle, and an at-risk body habitus were also more prevalent in SLE patients. CONCLUSION: Women with SLE have a range of detectable coronary risk factors that are not fully reflected in the Framingham risk factor formula. These factors are likely to contribute to the loss of protection from CHD that has been observed in SLE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".