Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent studies indicate that patients with lower levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) have greater regression of coronary plaque. In 2002, we found that carotid plaque progression doubled cardiovascular risk. In 2003, we therefore implemented a new approach, treating arteries instead of risk factors. Since then, we have seen many patients with carotid plaque progression despite very low levels of LDL-C, suggesting other causes of atherosclerosis. We studied the relationship of achieved LDL-C and change in LDL-C to progression/regression of atherosclerosis, before and after 2003. METHODS: All 4512 patients in our clinic database with at least 2 measurements of LDL-C and carotid total plaque area approximately a year apart and complete data for analyses (n=2025 before and 2487 after December 31, 2003) were included in the study. RESULTS: <0.0001). Many patients with LDL-C <1.8 mm had plaque progression (47.5%), and change in LDL-C was not correlated with plaque progression/regression. Increasing age and serum creatinine contributed to resistant atherosclerosis. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients have Resistant Atherosclerosis, failing to achieve regression of atherosclerosis despite low levels of LDL-C. Instead of relying on LDL-C, measuring plaque burden may be a more useful way of assessing individual response to therapy, particularly in resistant atherosclerosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".