MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 1244: Lipid Goals among Patients with Diabetes or the Metabolic Syndrome: The Lipid Treatment Assessment Project (L-TAP) 2

2008· article· en· W3934636 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Wouter Jukema, Roger S. Blumenthal, Raúl D. Santos, David D. Waters, Michael Messig, Lisa Tarasenko

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDyslipidemiaNational Cholesterol Education ProgramInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusMetabolic syndromePopulationLogistic regressionLipid profileEndocrinologyBlood pressureGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Achievement of lipid targets is particularly important in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM) and the metabolic syndrome (MS) because their cardiovascular (CV) risk is high. This analysis of the L-TAP 2 population compared goal attainment by DM status and number of MS components. Methods: In L-TAP 2, patients aged ≥20 years with dyslipidemia on stable lipid lowering therapy were assessed at investigation sites in 9 countries (US, Spain, Canada, Netherlands, Korea, France, Taiwan, Mexico, and Brazil) between September 2006 and April 2007. Lipid levels were determined once in each patient at time of enrollment. Achievement of LDL-C success (according to National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines), triglycerides (TG) goals (<150 mg/dL), and HDL-C success (>40 mg/dL in men or >50 mg/dL in women) was compared using logistic regression by DM status and number of MS components (BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 , TG ≥150 mg/dL, HDL-C <40 mg/dL in men or <50 mg/dL in women, blood pressure ≥130/≥85 mm Hg, fasting glucose ≥110 mg/dL). Lipid and CRP levels were compared by DM status using ANOVA. Results: A total of 9955 patients were evaluated. Patients with DM, compared with those without DM, had significantly lower achievement of LDL-C success (67% vs 75%), TG goals (55% vs 64%), and HDL-C success (62% vs 75%; P <0.0001 for all comparisons). However, significantly more DM patients had LDL-C <70 mg/dL (28% vs 16%; P <0.0001). As the number of MS components increased, success rates significantly decreased for both LDL-C (81%, 75%, 71%, 69%, 69%, and 69% for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 MS components respectively; P <0.0001) and HDL-C (91%, 74%, 50%, and 24% for 1, 2, 3, and 4 MS components respectively; P <0.0001). Patients with DM, compared with those without DM, had significantly higher CRP levels (1.86 vs 1.52 mg/L), significantly lower total cholesterol (175 vs 188 mg/dL), LDL-C (91 vs 104 mg/dL), HDL-C (49 vs 54 mg/dL), and non-HDL-C (125 vs 134 mg/dL), and higher TG (177 vs 155 mg/dL; P <0.0001 for all comparisons). Conclusions: This analysis indicates that despite their increased CV risk, patients with DM remain undertreated. Furthermore, as the number of MS components increases, lipid goal success rates decrease.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicDiet and metabolism studies→French-language works237,207→