MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213735077 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2021.07.011

Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Level Trends and the Development of Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy After Heart Transplantation

2021· article· en· W3213735077 on OpenAlexafffund
Natasha Aleksova, Fraz Umar, Jordan Bernick, Lisa Mielniczuk, Heather J. Ross, Sharon Chih

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaToronto General Hospital
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCardiac allograft vasculopathyHeart transplantationCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineTransplantationCholesterol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Unlike the relationship with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, that between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is unclear. Our objectives were to characterize lipid profiles early after heart transplantation (HT) and evaluate the relationship between early LDL-C and the development of CAV. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive adults who underwent HT at 2 centres during the time period 2010-2018. The primary outcome was the incidence of angiographic CAV. The relationship between LDL-C and CAV was assessed using Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models adjusted a priori for clinically important covariates, including recipient and donor age, recipient sex, ischemic time, and pre-HT diabetes. RESULTS: < 0.01). Of 309 patients who underwent angiography, 54% had CAV. The risk of CAV did not vary according to baseline, 1-year, or change from baseline to 1-year LDL-C. The odds of CAV at 1 year were equally likely across LDL-C values (adjusted odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.61-1.63 for baseline, and adjusted odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-2.10 for 1-year LDL-C). CONCLUSIONS: No association was identified between early LDL-C and the development of CAV. Our findings do not support targeting a specific LDL-C for patients who do not otherwise meet criteria for guideline-recommended LDL-C target levels. Randomized studies are warranted to determine if lipid-lowering to a specific LDL-C target level modifies the risk of CAV.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207