Relevance of lipoprotein ( a ) and atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: a Meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the relevance between lipoprotein(a) and atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis in adults.Methods Literature search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE Database,using “atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis” as the search term as well as in Wanfang Database,China National Knowledge Infrastructure,and Cqvip Database,using “renal artery stenosis” and “lipoprotein” as the search terms,aiming to find case-control or cohort studies published before 2010.The qualities of all the literatures enrolled were evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the data from which were analyzed by the Review Manager 5.0 software.Results Five eligible case-control studies (661 cases) entered the Meta analysis.The results showed that the lipoprotein(a) level was not significantly higher in the case group than that in the control group [ mean difference =0.0702 g/L,95％ CI ( - 0.0688,0.2092),P =0.32 ].Conclusion According to the existing studies,the relevance between lipoprotein(a) and atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis can not be established. Key words: Lipoprotein (a) ; Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis; Meta analysis
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 | 0.031 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".