MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806923326 · doi:10.1186/s12944-018-0752-2

Six-year time-trend analysis of dyslipidemia among adults in Newfoundland and Labrador: findings from the laboratory information system between 2009 and 2014

2018· article· en· W2806923326 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pardis Pedram, Erfan Aref‐Eshghi, Hensley H. Mariathas, Oliver Hurley, Marshall Godwin, Pauline Duke, Masoud Mahdavian, Shabnam Asghari

Bibliographic record

VenueLipids in Health and Disease · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research
KeywordsDyslipidemiaLipidologyClinical chemistryLipid profileMedicineInternal medicineConfoundingCholesterolClinical nutritionDemographyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidemia, an increased level of total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and decreased level of high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), is one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. We examined the six-year trend of dyslipidemia in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), a Canadian province with a historically high prevalence of dyslipidemia. METHODS: A serial cross-sectional study on all of the laboratory lipid tests available from 2009 to 2014 was performed. Dyslipidemia for every lipid component was defined using the Canadian Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dyslipidemia. The annual dyslipidemia rates for each component of serum lipid was examined. A fixed and random effect model was applied to adjust for confounding variables (sex and age) and random effects (residual variation in dyslipidemia over the years and redundancies caused by individuals being tested multiple times during the study period). RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2014, a total of 875,208 records (mean age: 56.9 ± 14.1, 47.6% males) containing a lipid profile were identified. The prevalence of HDL-C and LDL-C dyslipidemia significantly decreased during this period (HDL-C: 35.8% in 2009 [95% CI 35.5-36.1], to 29.0% in 2014 [95% CI: 28.8-29.2], P = 0.03, and LDL-C: 35.2% in 2009 [95% CI: 34.9-35.4] to 32.1% in 2014 [95% CI: 31.9-32.3], P = 0.02). A stratification by sex, revealed no significant trend for any lipid element in females; however, in men, the previously observed trends were intensified and a new decreasing trend in dyslipidemia of TC was appeared (TC: 34.1% [95% CI 33.7-34.5] to 32.3% [95%CI: 32.0-32.6], p < 0.02, HDL-C: 33.8% (95%CI: 33.3-34.2) to 24.0% (95% CI: 23.7-24.3)], P < 0.01, LDL-C: 32.9% (95%CI:32.5-33.3) to 28.6 (95%CI: 28.3-28.9), P < 0.001). Adjustment for confounding factors and removing the residual noise by modeling the random effects did not change the significance. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a significant downward trend in the prevalence of LDL-C, HDL-C, and TC dyslipidemia, exclusively in men. These trends could be the result of males being the primary target for cardiovascular risk management.

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)0.003
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLipids in Health and DiseaseSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207