An Overview on Cardiovascular Risks Definitions by Using Survival Analysis Techniques-Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study: 13-Year Follow-Up Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk assessment is an important issue for starting medication for patients. Literature reveals that diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia and Body Mass Index (BMI) are among major risk factors for longevity. Since the cut-off points proposed in various sources are generally irrespective of age, sex and race, it has been attempted to validate current definitions for Tehran’s elderly population by using a prospective cohort study. For this purpose, one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight (1,798) individuals above 60 years old were recruited in the primary phase of the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study (TLGS) during 1998-2001, and were tested for their systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), triglyceride (TG), fasting blood sugar (FBS), 2-h plasma glucose (2HPG) and some other factors at the time of entry to the study. They were followed up for 13 years and their vital statuses were registered (1998-2011). According to the standard definition of diabetes, dyslipidemia and hypertension, the participants were divided into ill and healthy groups. By using univariate Cox proportional hazard model, a 95% hazard ratio for various risk factors was estimated. Cut-off points of 126 mg/dL for fasting blood sugar or 200 mg/dL for 2HPG for defining diabetes were identified as appropriate points for predicting longevity for elderly males and females. Systolic blood pressure over 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure over 90 mmHg or having medication as a definition of hypertension were identified as a significant risk factor for elderly males only. Dyslipidemia which is defined based on Cholesterol>240 or TG>400 or LDL>160 or HDL<35, was not identified as a longevity predictor for elderly men and women. The results showed that BMI>31 Kg/m2 at the time of entry to the study significantly reduced the survival time of women. In conclusion, the definitions of diseases like hypertension and dyslipidemia based on cut-off points don’t classify the Tehran’s elderly population accurately. More investigation in this regard is required.
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 | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".