Glycemia and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: Exploring the Gap Between Risk Marker and Risk Factor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is consistent, unequivocal and reproducible epidemiological evidence derived from diverse populations that various indices of glycemia (fasting plasma glucose, postprandial or post oral glucose challenge plasma glucose, HbA1c) are associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), even in the prediabetic state. Furthermore, there is abundant experimental evidence demonstrating that hyperglycemia per se accelerates and aggravates the atherosclerotic process, providing biological plausibility to the concept that hyperglycemia is causally related or a true risk factor for ASCVD. Two studies in particular, DCCT and UKPDS, that enrolled a younger cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes or an older cohort with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, respectively, showed trends towards a reduction in ASCVD. The reductions in ASCVD reached statistical significance only after prolonged follow up, and when differences in HbA1c were no longer maintained (referred to by some as a ‘legacy effect’). More recent studies in those with established type 2 diabetes, in which glycemic control was improved by a variety of strategies, failed to demonstrate reductions in ASCVD. The gap in evidence supporting hyperglycemia as a true causative risk factor for ASCVD or simply a risk marker for some other confounding causative factor is discussed in this review. We conclude that hyperglycemia does appear to be at least partially causative of ASCVD (ie. an ASCVD risk factor). We discuss how this evidence can be incorporated into an overall therapeutic strategy to prevent ASCVD in those with prediabetes and established diabetes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".