MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334318078 · doi:10.1136/eb-2012-100787

Among statin-treated patients, LDL, non-HDL and apoB cholesterol biomarkers were associated with increased risks of cardiovascular events

2012· letter· en· W2334318078 on OpenAlexaff
Allan D. Sniderman, George Thanassoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineGastroenterologyApolipoprotein BMedicineWeb of scienceCholesterolEndocrinologyMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Boekholdt SM, Arsenault BJ, Mora S, et al. Association of LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels with risk of cardiovascular events among patients treated with statins: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2012;307:1302–9.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Each very-low-density lipoprotein and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle contains one molecule of apolipoprotein B (apoB). Increased numbers of cholesterol-depleted LDL particles are common in patients with hypertriglyceridaemia, premature vascular disease, obesity and type-2 diabetes mellitus and much in vitro and in vivo evidence indicates cholesterol-depleted LDL particles are at least as atherogenic as larger, more cholesterol-replete LDL particles.1 Nevertheless, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.issn%253D0002-9955%26rft.aulast%253DBoekholdt%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D307%26rft.issue%253D12%26rft.spage%253D1302%26rft.epage%253D1309%26rft.atitle%253DAssociation%2Bof%2BLDL%2Bcholesterol%252C%2Bnon-HDL%2Bcholesterol%252C%2Band%2Bapolipoprotein%2BB%2Blevels%2Bwith%2Brisk%2Bof%2Bcardiovascular%2Bevents%2Bamong%2Bpatients%2Btreated%2Bwith%2Bstatins%253A%2Ba%2Bmeta-analysis.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.2012.366%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22453571%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2012.366&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=22453571&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F18%2F2%2F73.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000301978400026&link_type=ISI

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0140.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.007

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Observational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207