MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765332076 · doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.3833

Association of Lipoprotein(a) With Risk of Recurrent Ischemic Events Following Acute Coronary Syndrome

2017· article· en· W2765332076 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory G. Schwartz, Christie M. Ballantyne, Philip J. Barter, David Kallend, Lawrence A. Leiter, Eran Leitersdorf, John J.V. McMurray, Stephen J. Nicholls, Anders Olsson, Prediman K. Shah, Jean‐Claude Tardif, John Kittelson

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Cardiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUnstable anginaAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyAngina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: It is uncertain whether lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], which is associated with incident cardiovascular disease, is an independent risk factor for recurrent cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Objective: To determine the association of Lp(a) concentration measured after ACS with the subsequent risk of ischemic cardiovascular events. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nested case-cohort analysis was performed as an ad hoc analysis of the dal-Outcomes randomized clinical trial. This trial compared dalcetrapib, the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, with placebo in patients with recent ACS and was performed between April 2008 and September 2012 at 935 sites in 27 countries. There were 969 case patients who experienced a primary cardiovascular outcome, and there were 3170 control patients who were event free at the time of a case event and had the same type of index ACS (unstable angina or myocardial infarction) as that of the respective case patients. Concentration of Lp(a) was measured by immunoturbidimetric assay. Data analysis for this present study was conducted from June 8, 2016, to April 21, 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment with dalcetrapib, 600 mg daily, or matching placebo, beginning 4 to 12 weeks after ACS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Death due to coronary heart disease, a major nonfatal coronary event (myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or resuscitated cardiac arrest), or fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke. Results: The mean (SD) age was 63 (10) years for the 969 case patients and 60 (9) years for the 3170 control patients, and both cohorts were composed of predominantly male (770 case patients [79%] and 2558 control patients [81%]; P = .40) and white patients (858 case patients [89%] and 2825 control patients [89%]; P = .62). At baseline, the median (interquartile range) Lp(a) level was 12.3 (4.7-50.9) mg/dL. There was broad application of evidence-based secondary prevention strategies after ACS, including use of statins in 4030 patients (97%). The cumulative distribution of baseline Lp(a) levels did not differ between cases and controls at P = .16. Case-cohort regression analysis showed no association of baseline Lp(a) level with risk of cardiovascular events. For a doubling of Lp(a) concentration, the hazard ratio (case to control) was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.96-1.06; P = .66) after adjustment for 16 baseline variables, including assigned study treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: For patients with recent ACS who are treated with statins, Lp(a) concentration was not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. These findings call into question whether treatment specifically targeted to reduce Lp(a) levels would thereby lower the risk for ischemic cardiovascular events after ACS. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00658515.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations95
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA CardiologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207