MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783534248 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000000501

Genetics in the prevention and management of coronary artery disease

2018· review· en· W2783534248 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robert Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseRisk stratificationCADDiseaseRisk assessmentComplex diseaseGenetic variantsLifetime riskInternal medicineBioinformaticsIntensive care medicineGeneticsGenotypeGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current review is to describe the genetic risk variants that have been discovered predisposing to coronary artery disease (CAD) and how they are utilized to stratify for risk of CAD. RECENT FINDINGS: Over 90 genetic risk variants have been discovered that predispose to risk for CAD. SUMMARY: The total genetic risk burden for CAD is proportional to the number of risk variants inherited and can be combined into a single number referred to as the genetic risk score (GRS). GRS has been utilized in multiple studies and shown to be more effective in risk stratification for CAD than conventional risk factors. There is a major advantage to risk stratification based on the GRS since the risk can be determined at birth or anytime throughout one's lifetime since the individual's DNA does not change. Widespread application of the GRS is likely to enable a paradigm shift in the primary prevention of CAD.

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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207