MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 10426: One Year Impact of the 2013 Cholesterol Guidelines on Patterns of Lipid Lowering Treatment

2015· article· en· W2938505737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josephine N. Tran, Tzu Chun Kao, Toros Caglar, Karen M. Stockl, Heidi C Lew, Brian K Solow, Paul S. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStatinGuidelineInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusDiscontinuationAtherosclerotic cardiovascular diseaseCoronary artery diseaseCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyDiseasePhysical therapyCardiologyMyocardial infarctionAnginaEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In 2013, national organizations issued new cholesterol guidelines to emphasize evidence-based treatment with moderate- to high-dose statins for patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which includes coronary heart disease, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease. Whether these new guidelines have influenced patterns of treatment one year after their dissemination is unknown. Methods: Using pharmacy and medical claims from a large U.S. health insurance organization, we identified 610,535 adult patients with ASCVD (n=301,440) or diabetes mellitus (n=309,095) and examined statin treatment rates before and one year after the new cholesterol guidelines. Among patients receiving statins post-guidelines, we also evaluated whether patients were treated with guideline-recommended intensity of statin therapy. A standardized difference (SD) of at least 10% was required to declare the effect size meaningful. Results: Overall, there was no change in statin treatment rates for patients with ASCVD (48.0% before guidelines vs. 47.3% after, SD [1.4]) or diabetes (50% vs. 51.5% after, SD [2.4]). Statin initiation rates among patients not on statins pre-guidelines were 10.1% in patients with ASCVD and 14.3% in patients with diabetes, and these gains were offset by 13.0% and 12.2% statin discontinuation rates among ASCVD and diabetes patients, respectively. Among patients taking statins one year post-guidelines, 80% of patients with ASCVD and < 75 years of age were not on guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy, whereas >75% of patients with ASCVD and >75 years of age or patients with diabetes were on moderate- or high-intensity statin treatment. Conclusion: One year after dissemination of the new 2013 cholesterol guidelines, overall treatment rates with statins among patients with ASCVD and diabetes have not changed appreciably, and many patients remain either untreated or under-treated. Character Count: 1683

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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