Expert position statements: comparison of recommendations for the care of adults and youth with elevated lipoprotein(a)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Summarize recent recommendations on clinical management of adults and youth with elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] who are at-risk of or affected by cardiovascular disease (CVD). RECENT FINDINGS: There is ample evidence to support elevated Lp(a) levels, present in approximately 20% of the general population, as a causal, independent risk factor for CVD and its role as a significant risk enhancer. Several guidelines and position statements have been published to assist in the identification, treatment and follow-up of adults with elevated levels of Lp(a). There is growing interest in Lp(a) screening and strategies to improve health behaviors starting in youth, although published recommendations for this population are limited. In addition to the well established increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and valvular aortic stenosis, data from the coronavirus pandemic suggest adults with elevated Lp(a) may have a particularly high-risk of cardiovascular complications. Lp(a)-specific-lowering therapies are currently in development. Despite their inability to lower Lp(a), use of statins have been shown to improve outcomes in primary and secondary prevention. SUMMARY: Considerable differences exist amongst published guidelines for adults on the use of Lp(a) in clinical practice, and recommendations for youth are limited. With increasing knowledge of Lp(a)'s role in CVD, including recent observations of COVID-19-related risk of cardiovascular complications, more harmonized and comprehensive guidelines for Lp(a) in clinical practice are required. This will facilitate clinical decision-making and help define best practices for identification and management of elevated Lp(a) in adults and youth.
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 | 0.033 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".