MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Age-Specific Lipid and Lipoprotein Thresholds for Adolescents

2008· article· en· W2334762796 on OpenAlexaff
Courtney J. Jolliffe, Ian Janssen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyslipidemiaMedicineLipoproteinLipid profileCardiovascular healthYoung adultNational Cholesterol Education ProgramCholesterolEndocrinologyInternal medicineObesityDiseaseMetabolic syndrome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasma lipid and lipoprotein values that are relatively stable in adulthood undergo continuous changes during the developmental years, with most of these changes reflecting natural fluctuations that occur with growth and maturation. Therefore, a clinical classification system appropriate for youth should not consist of uniform lipoprotein thresholds that can be used at all ages to define healthy and increased risk values. This is, however, the approach used in the National Cholesterol Education Program pediatric guidelines. A recent study created the first age-specific lipid and lipoprotein thresholds for adolescents based on a large representative sample of American adolescents aged 12 to 19 years. The adolescent thresholds were linked to the health-based thresholds used in adults using growth curve modeling. Although studies are needed to validate the newly defined adolescent lipid and lipoprotein thresholds, this classification system should provide a more accurate diagnosis of dyslipidemia and associated cardiovascular health risks in adolescents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cardiovascular NursingSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207