MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736554561 · doi:10.1016/j.gheart.2017.04.001

A Breakthrough in Genetics and its Relevance to Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease in LMIC

2017· review· en· W2736554561 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robert Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Heart · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsMedicineChecklistObservational studyStrengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiologyGlobal healthEpidemiologyCoronary artery diseaseRelevance (law)DiseasePublic healthFamily medicinePathologyCardiologyPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than 60 genetic risk variants predisposing to coronary artery disease (CAD) have been confirmed. The genetic risk for CAD is related to the number of genetic risk variants present and can be expressed as a genetic risk score (GRS), by summing the product of the number of high-risk variants inherited by each individual times the log of the odds ratio. Studies show risk stratification for CAD, based on the GRS, is more discriminatory than conventional risk factors and predicts the response to statin therapy. A prospective trial showed individuals with high GRS had 91% greater risk of cardiac events, and individuals with a healthy lifestyle had 46% fewer cardiac events than an unfavorable lifestyle. GRS remains the same throughout one's lifetime because your deoxyribonucleic acid does not change. GRS, determined as early as birth from saliva, is inexpensive and could transform the prevention of CAD in low- and middle-income countries.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal HeartSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207