MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901777987 · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2018.291922

Development and Validation of Apolipoprotein AI-Associated Lipoprotein Proteome Panel for the Prediction of Cholesterol Efflux Capacity and Coronary Artery Disease

2018· article· en· W2901777987 on OpenAlexaff
Zhicheng Jin, Timothy S. Collier, Darlene Dai, Virginia Chen, Zsuzsanna Hollander, Raymond T. Ng, Bruce M. McManus, Robert Balshaw, Sophia Apostolidou, Marc S. Penn, Cory Bystrom

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsPrevention of Organ Failure
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UK
KeywordsLipoproteinApolipoprotein BProteomeCholesterolCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineHigh-density lipoproteinMultivariate statisticsMedicineBiologyComputer scienceBioinformaticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC) is a measure of HDL function that, in cell-based studies, has demonstrated an inverse association with cardiovascular disease. The cell-based measure of CEC is complex and low-throughput. We hypothesized that assessment of the lipoprotein proteome would allow for precise, high-throughput CEC prediction. METHODS After isolating lipoprotein particles from serum, we used LC-MS/MS to quantify 21 lipoprotein-associated proteins. A bioinformatic pipeline was used to identify proteins with univariate correlation to cell-based CEC measurements and generate a multivariate algorithm for CEC prediction (pCE). Using logistic regression, protein coefficients in the pCE model were reweighted to yield a new algorithm predicting coronary artery disease (pCAD). RESULTS Discovery using targeted LC-MS/MS analysis of 105 training and test samples yielded a pCE model comprising 5 proteins (Spearman r = 0.86). Evaluation of pCE in a case–control study of 231 specimens from healthy individuals and patients with coronary artery disease revealed lower pCE in cases (P = 0.03). Derived within this same study, the pCAD model significantly improved classification (P < 0.0001). Following analytical validation of the multiplexed proteomic method, we conducted a case–control study of myocardial infarction in 137 postmenopausal women that confirmed significant separation of specimen cohorts in both the pCE (P = 0.015) and pCAD (P = 0.001) models. CONCLUSIONS Development of a proteomic pCE provides a reproducible high-throughput alternative to traditional cell-based CEC assays. The pCAD model improves stratification of case and control cohorts and, with further studies to establish clinical validity, presents a new opportunity for the assessment of cardiovascular health.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207