Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Extensive work has gone into understanding the genetics of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and implicating genes involved in hyperlipidaemia. Translation into routine practise involves using genetic risk scores (GRS) to identify high-risk individuals in the general population. Some of these risk scores are beginning to disentangle the complex nature of CVD and inherited dyslipidaemias. RECENT FINDINGS: GRS of varying complexity have been used to identify high-risk groups of patients with polygenic CVD including some individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic disease. In phenotypic familial hypercholesterolaemia a six or 12 gene lipid GRS may identify polygenic cases that comprise up to 50% of cases. In high triglyceride syndromes including even cases of familial chylomicronaemia syndrome more than 80% of cases are polygenic and not even associated with rare variants. In both familial hypercholesterolaemia and familial chylomicronaemia syndrome individuals with polygenic disease have a lower risk than those with monogenic disease. SUMMARY: GRS show promise in identifying individuals with high risks of CVD. They have a close relationship with imaging markers. It is unclear whether GRS, imaging or both will be used to identify individuals at high risk of future events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".