MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Lathosterol to cholesterol ratio in serum predicts cholesterol lowering response to plant sterol therapy in a dual center, randomized, single‐blind placebo controlled trial.

2013· article· en· W3173542457 on OpenAlexafffund
Dylan MacKay, Sarah K Gebauer, David J. Baer, Peter J.H. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholesterol and Lipid Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLathosterolCholesterolInternal medicineSterolCrossover studyEndocrinologyChemistryRandomized controlled trialPlaceboCampesterolMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant sterol (PS) therapy for LDL‐C lowering has highly variable efficacy across individuals. It has been suggested that cholesterol synthesis levels may affect PS response. A study was conducted to test lathosterol to cholesterol ratio (L/C), a marker of cholesterol synthesis, as a predictor of response to PS consumption. 63 mildly hypercholesterolemic adults, with high (n=24, L/C = 2.03 ± 0.39) or low (n=39, L/C =0.99±0.28) L/C ratio at baseline, consumed either 0 or 2g/d (free sterol) of PS ester in margarine for 28 days in a dual‐center, single‐blind, randomized, crossover design. Plasma lipids, non‐cholesterol sterols, and 7‐α hydroxy‐cholesterol (7αHC) a marker of bile acid (BA) synthesis, were measured at the end of each phase. PS consumption significantly lowered LDL‐C, with a significant interaction with L/C ratio. LDL‐C was lowered in the low L/C group (−0.29 mmol/L 95% CI [−0.39, −0.19] p=<0.0001), but not the high L/C group (−0.04 mmol/L 95% CI [−0.18, 0.09] p=0.4904). 7αHC after PS consumption correlated with LDL response in high L/C group (r=−0.59, p=0.002), but not in the low or combined L/C groups. The L/C ratio predicts reductions in LDL‐C in response to PS consumption. BA synthesis may be associated with PS response in individuals with high cholesterol synthesis. These findings could help in identifying non‐responders to PS therapy. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01131832 . Grant Funding Source : CIHR

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicCholesterol and Lipid Metabolism→French-language works237,207→