MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13767: Reaching the LDL-Cholesterol Target Recommended by the Guidelines: Be Ambitious to Get the Maximum Benefit

2021· article· en· W3215734728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matteo Casula, Ivan Taietti, M Galazzi, Iris Zeqaj, Federico Fortuni, Stefano Cornara, Alberto Somaschini, Sergio Leonardi, Rita Camporotondo, Rossana Totaro, Marco Ferlini, Massimiliano Gnecchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLdl cholesterolCholesterolAtherosclerotic cardiovascular diseaseInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There is no agreement among international guidelines (GL) on the recommended therapeutic target for LDL cholesterol in secondary prevention (SP). Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to determine the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up in a real-world SP population according to the achievement of a purely numerical threshold (i.e. LDL<1.8mmol/L [Canadian 2021 GL], group A) or a target that also considers a relative reduction in LDL levels (i.e. LDL reduced ≥50% from baseline and <1.8mmol/L [AHA/ACC 2018 GL] or <1.4 mmol/L [ESC 2019 GL], group B). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a monocentric observational registry prospectively enrolling patients admitted for STEMI between 2011 and 2019. The combined endpoint of MACE included all-cause death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke, and unplanned revascularization. The lowest LDL value collected between 1 and 12 months after the index event was used to define the achievement of the target. We conducted a Kaplan-Meier analysis comparing patients who achieved different GL-recommended targets. Results: A total of 1199 patients (23% female) were included. Median age was 63 (54-72) years, 56% had hypertension, 17% diabetes, and 38% were smoker. Baseline LDL was 3.2 (2.5-3.8) mmol/L; 83% of patients were treated with statin therapy alone, and 17% with the addition of ezetimibe. Median follow-up was 53 (32-70) months. The Canadian, AHA/ACC and ESC targets were achieved in 842 (70%), 506 (42%) and 308 (26%) patients respectively; MACE-free analysis based on the target achieved is presented in FigA. The net incidence of MACE was 29% in group A vs 15% in group B (HR 1.97; 95%CI 1.36-2.85; P log-rank=0.0003; NNT=7; FigB). Conclusions: Our data from a real-world cohort of secondary prevention patients emphasize the importance of achieving a guideline-recommended target that also considers a relative reduction in LDL levels (i.e. LDL ≤50% from baseline) in order to reduce MACE.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→