MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Associations of homocysteine, C-reactive protein and cardiovascular disease in patients with renal disease

2001· review· en· W2313310942 on OpenAlexafffund
John W. Eikelboom, Graeme J. Hankey

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & Hypertension · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsHomocysteineMedicineC-reactive proteinDiseaseStroke (engine)Internal medicineMyocardial infarctionKidney diseasePopulationEpidemiologyVascular diseaseInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past year, evidence from epidemiological studies in patients with renal disease has confirmed associations between both elevated plasma total homocysteine concentrations and the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein with an increased risk of arteriosclerotic vascular disease. However, it remains to be determined whether lowering total homocysteine or reducing inflammation will prevent 'hard' clinical outcome events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. Randomized trials of homocysteine lowering are currently ongoing and should further clarify the nature of the observed association between elevated total homocysteine and cardiovascular risk in patients with or without renal disease, and whether it is causal and modifiable. There are currently no known therapeutic interventions that specifically lower C-reactive protein levels in individuals or the prevalence of elevated C-reactive protein in the population but randomized trials of anti-inflammatory therapy (e.g. using selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors) aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease are currently being planned.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & HypertensionSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207