MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170585699 · doi:10.1136/jech-2013-202386.4

PREVALENCE OF DYSLIPIDEMIA IN NEWFOUNDLAND ADULTS: APPROACHES TO ESTIMATION USING ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS

2013· article· en· W2170585699 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justin D. Oake, Shabnam Asghari, Marshall Godwin, Kayla Collins, Kris Aubrey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Epidemiology & Community Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health ResearchMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyslipidemiaMedicineMedical recordDiabetes mellitusPopulationPredictive valueLipid profileDiagnosis codePediatricsInternal medicineDiseaseEnvironmental healthDemographyCholesterolEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Dyslipidemia is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) has a higher level of CVD mortality than any other province in Canada. This high level may be partially explained by the lipid profiles of people in this province. To our knowledge, there is no study in NL or Canada to use electronic medical records (EMR) to assess the prevalence of dyslipidemia. Objectives First, to assess the prevalence of dyslipidemia in NL using Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) EMR data. Second, to develop an algorithm that will provide a more accurate estimation of dyslipidemia using EMR data. Methods This is a secondary, cross-sectional analysis of existing data in our province. The study population included all patients aged 20 years or older who lived in NL. The most recent lipid profile (triglyceride, total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL-C), low density lipoprotein (LDL-C)) available on patients between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010 was identified. Independent variables included sex, age, lipid lowering medication use, and presence of comorbid conditions and other risk factors, such as hypertension and diabetes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and κ agreement, were calculated to compare different algorithms (ICD-9 code, laboratory result and lipid lowering medication use) for estimating the prevalence of dyslipidemia. Results This study included 4424 primary healthcare patients. Approximately 42% of patients were considered to have high total cholesterol, almost 36% had unhealthy levels of LDL-C, 25% had low HDL-C, and nearly 25% had high triglycerides. For adults with multiple dyslipidemias, elevated total cholesterol and LDL-C was the most common combination (32.9%), followed by elevated total cholesterol and triglycerides (13.1%). A combination of lipid lowering medication use and laboratory results revealed a sensitivity of 99.4%, and the κ agreement was 0.99 compared with the combination of the three existing variables. This algorithm showed a dyslipidemic prevalence of 76.0% among these patients. Conclusions Results of the NL component of the CPCSSN database showed a high prevalence of both individual and multiple dyslipidemias. Furthermore, the optimal criteria to estimate the prevalence of dyslipidemia in EMRs is using laboratory results together with lipid lowering medication use. These findings highlight the need for further investigation into lipid research in NL in order to determine the magnitude of dyslipidemia as an important risk factor of CVD and other chronic diseases in NL.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Epidemiology & Community HealthSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207