MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084528625 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2020.09.007

Montreal-FH-SCORE Predicts Coronary Artery Calcium Score in Patients With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

2020· article· en· W3084528625 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah Béland‐Bonenfant, Martine Paquette, Manon Fantino, Lucienne Bourque, Nathalie Saint-Pierre, Alexis Baass, Sophie Bernard

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversité de Montréal
FundersAmgen CanadaInstitut de Recherche Clinique De MontréalFondation LeducqSanofi
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioInternal medicineFamilial hypercholesterolemiaConfidence intervalUnivariate analysisPopulationCoronary artery diseaseCoronary Calcium ScoreFramingham Risk ScoreCardiologyRisk factorDiseaseMultivariate analysisCholesterolCoronary artery calcium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundFamilial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a monogenic disease characterized by a high concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. This population is considered to be at high cardiovascular risk; however, disease evolution remains heterogeneous among individuals. The coronary artery calcium (CAC) score is currently the best predictor of incidental major cardiovascular events in primary prevention in the general population. Few studies have described the CAC score in FH populations.MethodsThe objective of our study was to determine the predictors of the CAC score in FH patients. We retrospectively studied FH patients followed at the Montreal Clinical Research Institute (IRCM) Lipid Clinic who had a cardiac scan for CAC score, using the Agatston method, between 2013 and 2019.ResultsFinal analysis included 62 FH patients. Mean age was 48 ± 14 years old, and 48% were men. Overall, 25 patients had a CAC score of 0 (40%), and 37 patients had a nonzero CAC score (60%). Sex, age, Montreal-FH-SCORE (MFHS), waist circumference, and statin exposure in years were significant predictors (P ≤ 0,05) of a nonzero CAC score in a univariate model. MFHS was the only factor that remained significant in a multivariate model (odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.11–1.61, P = 0.002).ConclusionsIn conclusion, we found that MFHS, which includes traditional cardiovascular risk factors, was a predictor of a nonzero CAC score in FH patients. This finding suggests that MFHS may play a role in determining the cardiovascular risk and therefore the intensity of treatment in FH patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207