Six-year time-trend analysis of dyslipidemia among adults in Newfoundland and Labrador: findings from the laboratory information system between 2009 and 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".