MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978247514 · doi:10.7717/peerj.7856

The association between serum lipids and risk of premature mortality in Latin America: a systematic review of population-based prospective cohort studies

2019· review· en· W2978247514 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rodrigo M. Carrillo‐Larco, Leonardo Albitres‐Flores, Noël C. Barengo, Antonio Bernabé‐Ortiz

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicinePopulationHazard ratioCohort studyOdds ratioProspective cohort studyMEDLINEScopusMeta-analysisRisk of mortalityRelative riskEnvironmental healthDemographyInternal medicineConfidence intervalBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To synthetize the scientific evidence on the association between serum lipids and premature mortality in Latin America (LA). METHODS: Five data bases were searched from inception without language restrictions: Embase, Medline, Global Health, Scopus and LILACS. Population-based studies following random sampling methods were identified. The exposure variable was lipid biomarkers (e.g., total, LDL- or HDL- cholesterol). The outcome was all-cause and cause-specific mortality. The risk of bias was assessed following the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Results were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: = 27,903) were included for the synthesis. Three papers reported on the same study from Puerto Rico (baseline in 1965), one was from Brazil (1996) and one from Peru (2007). All reports analysed different exposure variables and used different risk estimates (relative risks, hazard ratios or odds ratios). None of the reviewed reports showed strong association between individual lipid biomarkers and all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSION: The available evidence is outdated, inconsistently reported on several lipid biomarker definitions and used different methods to study the long-term mortality risk. These findings strongly support the need to better ascertain the mortality risk associated with lipid biomarkers in LA.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207