MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229049888 · doi:10.1016/s2666-7568(22)00079-4

An adverse lipoprotein phenotype—hypertriglyceridaemic hyperapolipoprotein B—and the long-term risk of type 2 diabetes: a prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study

2022· article· en· W4229049888 on OpenAlexaff
Karol M. Pencina, Michael Pencina, Line Dufresne, Michael V. Holmes, George Thanassoulis, Allan D. Sniderman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Healthy Longevity · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNovartis
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusApolipoprotein BCohortType 2 diabetesProspective cohort studyFramingham Heart StudyWaistCohort studyFramingham Risk ScoreCholesterolEndocrinologyObesityDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study examines the risk of new-onset diabetes in patients with hypertriglyceridaemic hyperapolipoprotein B (high triglycerides, high apolipoprotein B [apoB], low LDL cholesterol to apoB ratio, and low HDL cholesterol). The aim was to establish whether this lipoprotein phenotype identified a substantial group at high risk of developing diabetes over the next 20 years. METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study, we used data from the Framingham Offspring cohort (recruited in Framingham, MA, USA). Participants were aged 40-69 years and free of diabetes and cardiovascular disease at a baseline examination done between April, 1987, and November, 1991, and were followed up until March, 2014. Cox proportional hazards regression with hierarchical adjustment for age and sex, waist circumference, and fasting blood glucose were used to model the relationship between each lipid marker and incident diabetes, as well as the relationship between hypertriglyceridaemic hyperapoB (defined as values greater than sample medians of triglycerides and apoB, and less than medians of HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol to apoB ratio) and incident diabetes. FINDINGS: Of 3446 individuals aged 40-69 years who completed baseline examination, 2515 participants were eligible and included in all analyses. During median 21·1 years (IQR 11·1-23·1) of follow-up, 402 (16·0%) individuals developed diabetes. Age (p=0·032), waist circumference (p<0·0001), fasting blood glucose (p<0·0001), and natural logarithm-transformed triglycerides (p<0·0001) were associated with new-onset diabetes, as were apoB (p=0·0016), LDL cholesterol to apoB ratio (p=0·0018), and HDL cholesterol (p=0·0016) when added to this model. The age and sex-adjusted incidence of diabetes in the hypertriglyceridaemic hyperapoB group was 32·4% (95% CI 27·8-37·7) versus 5·5% (3·5-8·6) in the optimal lipid phenotype group and 15·5% (13·5-17·7) in the mixed lipid phenotype group. The fully adjusted hazard ratio, including glucose and waist circumference, for individuals with hypertriglyceridaemic hyperapoB was 3·30 (95% CI 2·06-5·30; p=0·0008) and for mixed lipid phenotype was 2·17 (1·38-3·40; p<0·0001) compared with those with the optimal lipid phenotype. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that individuals with hypertriglyceridaemic hyperapoB are at high risk of new-onset diabetes and might benefit from intensive measures to prevent diabetes. The association between this phenotype and incident diabetes is consistent with a pro-diabetic effect due to increased clearance of apoB particles from plasma, which could injure pancreatic islet cells. This mechanism might explain the increased risk of diabetes with statin therapy. FUNDING: Doggone Foundation.

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)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Healthy LongevitySame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207