MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 16680: Lipoprotein(a) and Progression Rate of Aortic Valve Stenosis - A Pooled-Analysis of Two Prospective Studies

2014· article· en· W2889297232 on OpenAlexaff
Romain Capoulade, Lionel Tastet, Ablajan Mahmut, Kwan L. Chan, Sandra Guauque-Olarte, Marie Arsenault, Élisabeth Bédard, Benoît J. Arsenault, Nathalie Gaudreault, Jean G. Dumesnil, Koon Teo, James W. Tam, Jean‐Pierre Després, Patrick Mathieu, Yohan Bossé, Philippe Pîbarot

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface HospitalMcMaster UniversityOttawa Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyLipoprotein(a)StenosisHemodynamicsAortic valve stenosisCohortAortic valveProspective cohort studyLipoproteinCholesterol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported a single nucleotide polymorphism (i.e. rs10455872) at the LPA gene locus, encoding the lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], is associated with the presence of aortic valve calcification and clinical aortic stenosis (AS). The objectives of this study were to examine the association of Lp(a) plasma levels and rs 10455872 with the progression rate of AS. METHODS: Lp(a) plasma levels were measured in 203 patients with AS included in the ASTRONOMER (NCT00800800) trial and 246 patients in the PROGRESSA study (NCT01679431). The polymorphism rs10455872 was genotyped in the PROGRESSA cohort. Hemodynamic progression rate of AS severity was assessed by measuring the annualized increase in peak aortic jet velocity (Vpeak) by Doppler-echocardiography. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (13%) patients of the ASTRONOMER trial and 47 (19%) of the PROGRESSA study had high Lp(a) plasma levels (i.e. >50mg/dL). Baseline AS severity was similar in patients with high vs. low Lp(a) levels (p>0.10). In the pooled-analysis of both cohorts (a total of 449 patients with mean follow-up: 3.0 ±1.4 yrs), AS progression rate was similar in patients with Lp(a)>50 mg/dL compared to those with Lp(a)≤50 mg/dL (annualized change in Vpeak: +0.17±0.21 vs. +0.17±0.21 m/s/yr; p=0.97). Stratified analyses by cohort provided consistent results (ASTRONOMER: +0.20±0.21 vs. +0.25±0.19 m/s/yr; p=0.20; and PROGRESSA: +0.12±0.21 vs. +0.14±0.20 m/s/yr; p=0.46). In the PROGRESSA study, 38 (16%) patients carried at least one rs10455872 risk allele. Carriers of the risk allele had higher Lp(a) levels (58±24 vs. 20±38 mg/dL; p<0.0001). Baseline AS severity was similar in carriers and non-carriers whereas there was a borderline significant association for lower AS progression rate in carriers compared to non-carriers (+0.07±0.17 vs. +0.15±0.21 m/s/yr; p=0.05). Similar results were obtained for baseline and annualized progression rate assessed by aortic valve area. CONCLUSION: This prospective study shows that neither LPA gene variant nor Lp(a) plasma levels are associated with faster AS progression rate. Our findings do not support the notion that Lp(a) levels are related to AS progression rate in patients with AS.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.016
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→