MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809995020 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000000542

Genetic stratification for primary prevention of coronary artery disease

2018· review· en· W2809995020 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robert Roberts, Arlene Campillo

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
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticFramingham Risk ScorePrimary preventionDiseaseCoronary artery diseaseRisk stratificationInternal medicineRisk assessmentCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the literature showing genetic risk variants is a reliable means of stratifying for risk of CAD for primary prevention. RECENT FINDINGS: Over 90 genetic risk variants have been discovered that predispose to CAD. Results of several studies show that these risk variants effectively stratify for risk of CAD in asymptomatic individuals. SUMMARY: The total individual genetic risk can be summarized into a single number referred to as the genetic risk score (GRS). The GRS unlike the Framingham Risk Score is not dependent on age and independent of conventional risk factors. As DNA does not change during one's lifetime the GRS can be calculated at birth or any time thereafter. Furthermore, the GRS has been shown to provide superior discriminatory power in selecting individuals who will benefit most from lifestyle changes or statin therapy. A prospective study showed individuals with high GRS and a favorable lifestyle was associated with significant reduction of cardiac events compared with an unfavorable lifestyle. Furthermore, the study shows inherited risk can be reduced analogous to reduction of risk form acquired and environmental factors. The use of GRS to stratify for risk of CAD in asymptomatic individuals could transform primary prevention worldwide.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.301 · 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.

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