MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911802438 · doi:10.1177/2047487319829746

Genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia: Impact on diagnosis, treatment and cardiovascular risk

2019· review· en· W2911802438 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineFamilial hypercholesterolemiaOdds ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalGenetic testingPopulationMyocardial infarctionFamily historyAtherosclerotic cardiovascular diseaseCholesterolDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is the most common genetic disorder in medicine, with a prevalence of 1/250. Affected individuals have elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and an increased lifetime risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The diagnosis of FH is based on algorithms that include LDL-C levels, physical manifestations, family history of high LDL-C and premature ASCVD, and, more recently, genetic testing. We sought to determine the impact of genetic testing on the: 1) diagnosis of ‘definite familial hypercholesterolemia’, 2) initiation and adherence of lipid-lowering therapy and 3) risk of ASCVD. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, pooling odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for ASCVD from studies comparing risk estimates in individuals harboring FH-causing variants and unaffected individuals. Results After screening 3304 unique publications, 56 studies were included in the analysis. 1) Genetic testing provided confirmation of FH in 28–80%, over clinical criteria alone, depending on the diagnostic algorithm and the method of analysis. In two large population-based studies comprising 76,751 individuals, an FH-causing variant was identified in only 1.7–2.5% of subjects with an LDL-C > 4.9 mmol/L (190 mg/dL). 2) A confirmed molecular diagnosis increased lipid-lowering therapy adherence (five studies, n = 4181 definite FH). 3) Loss-of-function variant of the LDLR were at a markedly increased risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratio 6.77, 95% confidence interval 4.75–9.66), and patients with a milder (hypomorphic) pathogenic LDLR change had a 4.4-fold increase in risk (odds ratio 4.4, 95% confidence interval 2.34–8.26), compared with controls. Conclusion DNA sequencing confirms the diagnosis of FH but has a poor yield in unselected patients whose sole criterion is an elevated LDL-C. Initiation and adherence to treatment is improved. The risk of ASCVD is 4.4- to 6.8-fold increased in patients with an FH-causing variant compared with controls, depending on the severity of the DNA change.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.266 · 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