MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223584485 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.121.034924

Effect of Lipoprotein(a) on Stroke Recurrence Attenuates at Low LDL-C (Low-Density Lipoprotein) and Inflammation Levels

2022· article· en· W4223584485 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflammationStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeIschemiaRisk factorStroke riskVascular disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lp(a) (lipoprotein(a)) contributes to cardiovascular disease mainly through proatherogenic and proinflammatory effects. Here, we aimed to evaluate whether a residual stroke risk of Lp(a) would remain when the LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and inflammatory levels are maintained low. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 9899 patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack from the Third China National Stroke Registry who had measurements of plasma Lp(a) and were followed up for 1 year. Cutoffs were set at the 50 mg/dL for Lp(a). LDL-C was corrected for Lp(a)-derived cholesterol (LDL-Cc [LDL-C corrected]) and cutoffs were set at 55 and 70 mg/dL.The threshold values of IL-6 (interleukin 6) and hsCRP (high-sensitive C-reactive protein) were the median 2.65 ng/L and 2 mg/L. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) were calculated using Cox regression models for each category to investigate the associations of Lp(a) with stroke recurrence within 1 year. RESULTS: Among all patients, those with Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL were at higher stroke recurrence risk than those with Lp(a) <50 mg/dL (11.5% versus 9.4%; adjusted HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.02-1.42]). However, the risk associated with elevated Lp(a) was attenuated in patients with LDL-Cc <55 mg/dL (high Lp(a) versus low Lp(a): 8.9% versus 9.0%; adjusted HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.65-1.30]) or IL-6 <2.65 ng/L (9.0% versus 7.8%; adjusted HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.87-1.49]). Notably, in the group with both low LDL-Cc and inflammation levels, the rate of patients with high Lp(a) did not significantly different from the rate of patients with low Lp(a; LDL-Cc <55 mg/dL and IL-6 <2.65 ng/L: 6.2% versus 7.1%; adjusted HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.46-1.62]; LDL-Cc <55 mg/dL and hsCRP <2 mg/L: 7.7% versus 7.6%; adjusted HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.57-1.66]). However, there was no interaction between the LDL-Cc, IL-6, hsCRP, and Lp(a) levels on stroke recurrence risk. CONCLUSIONS: Increased Lp(a) was significantly associated with stroke recurrence risk in patients with ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack. However, at low LDL-Cc or IL-6 levels, the elevated Lp(a) -associated stroke recurrence risk was attenuated in a secondary prevention setting.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations41
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207