MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083258151 · doi:10.1161/jaha.119.014711

Risks of Incident Cardiovascular Disease Associated With Concomitant Elevations in Lipoprotein(a) and Low‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol—The Framingham Heart Study

2020· article· en· W3083258151 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Afshar, Jian Rong, Yang Zhan, Hao Yu Chen, James C. Engert, Allan D. Sniderman, Martin G. Larson, Ramachandran S. Vasan, George Thanassoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteSchool of Medicine, Boston University
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineLipoprotein(a)LipoproteinHazard ratioFramingham Risk ScoreCholesterolRisk factorHigh-density lipoproteinFramingham Heart StudyEndocrinologyDiseaseCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a well‐established risk factor for atherosclerotic vascular disease but is not measured in routine clinical care. Screening of high lipoprotein(a) in individuals with moderate elevations of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) may identify individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results We examined 2606 Framingham Offspring participants (median age, 54 years; 45% men) prospectively with a median follow‐up of 15 years (n=392 incident cardiovascular events). Individuals with higher (≥100 nmol/L) versus lower lipoprotein(a) were divided into groups based on LDL‐C <135 mg/dL versus ≥135 mg/dL. In Cox models, after adjustment for known risk factors, high lipoprotein(a) (≥100 nmol/L) and LDL‐C ≥135 mg/dL were each significant predictors of cardiovascular disease (LDL‐C ≥135 mg/dL: hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09–1.64; P =0.006; high lipoprotein (a): HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03–1.66; P =0.026). Across the groups of high/low lipoprotein (a) and LDL‐C ≥135 mg/dL or <135 mg/dL, the absolute cardiovascular disease risks at 15 years were 22.6% (high lipoprotein(a)/LDL‐C ≥135 mg/dL, n=248), 17.3% (low lipoprotein(a)/LDL‐C ≥135 mg/dL, n=758), 12.7% (high lipoprotein(a)/LDL‐C <135 mg/dL, n=275) and 11.5% (low lipoprotein(a)/LDL‐C <135 mg/dL, n=1328, reference group). Among individuals with LDL‐C ≥135 mg/dL, those with high lipoprotein(a) had a 43% higher risk (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.05–1.97; P =0.02). Presence of high lipoprotein(a) with moderate LDL‐C levels (135–159 mg/dL) yielded absolute risks equivalent to those with LDL‐C ≥160 mg/dL (23.5%, 95% CI, 17.4%–31.3%; and 20.7%, 95% CI, 16.8%–25.3%, respectively). Conclusions Concomitant elevation of LDL‐C ≥135 mg/dL and lipoprotein(a) ≥100 nmol/L is associated with a high absolute risk of incident cardiovascular disease. lipoprotein(a) measurement in individuals with moderate elevations in LDL‐C, who do not otherwise meet criteria for statins, may identify individuals at high cardiovascular risk.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207