MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Race and Socioeconomic Differences Associated With Changes in Statin Eligibility Under the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Guidelines

2017· article· en· W2755740638 on OpenAlexaff
Amol A. Verma, Marcia Pescador Jimenez, S. V. Subramanian, Allan D. Sniderman, Fahad Razak

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsMedicineSocioeconomic statusOdds ratioOddsDemographyInternal medicineNational Cholesterol Education ProgramHealth equityDiabetes mellitusStatinObservational studyGerontologyLogistic regressionPopulationPublic healthEnvironmental healthObesityMetabolic syndromeEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background— The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines expanded eligibility criteria for statins. We examined race and socioeconomic differences associated with these changes. Methods and Results— This was an observational study of adults between 40 and 75 years of age using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys between 2005 and 2012. Change in eligibility for statins was assessed based on the third adult treatment panel criteria and the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines. Differences relating to self-reported race, income, education, and insurance status were assessed in models that were adjusted for age and each of the other factors. Statin eligibility increased among all race, education, and income groups. Becoming newly eligible for statins was more likely for black people (25.8% newly eligible; adjusted odds ratio, 3.8; P <0.001), people of other races (18.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.5; P <0.001), those with no more than high-school education (17.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.7; P =0.001), and those with no health insurance (17.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.5; P <0.001) compared with white people (14.5%), those who completed college (13.0%), and those with health insurance (15.6%). Income differences were not significant after adjusting for age, race, and education. These differences were driven by the prevalence of elevated predicted cardiac risk and diabetes mellitus. Among the US adults who were newly eligible for statins, 12.4 million (66.3%) were nonwhite, had lower education or lower income, and 3.0 million (16.1%) had no health insurance. Race and socioeconomic differences in statin eligibility were more pronounced under the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines than under third adult treatment panel. If treatment disparities remain unchanged, the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines increase the number of US adults who are eligible but do not receive statins by 3.0 million nonwhites, 3.6 million with no more than high-school education, and 4.1 million in the lowest 2 income quartiles. Conclusions— The 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines increase statin eligibility most among adults with nonwhite race, socioeconomic disadvantage, and no health insurance. Without improving access to healthcare, the potential gains from expanding indications for cardioprotective medications will not be realized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207