MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304123548 · doi:10.1161/jaha.122.025858

Physiological Bases for the Superiority of Apolipoprotein B Over Low‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Non–High‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol as a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk

2022· review· en· W4304123548 on OpenAlexafffund
Tamara Glavinovic, George Thanassoulis, Jacqueline de Graaf, Patrick Couture, Robert A. Hegele, Allan D. Sniderman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsApolipoprotein BLipoproteinCholesterolInternal medicineChylomicronLow-density lipoproteinIntermediate-density lipoproteinHigh-density lipoproteinEndocrinologyApolipoprotein EVery low-density lipoproteinMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2019, the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society stated that apolipoprotein B (apoB) was a more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk than low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Since then, the evidence has continued to mount in favor of apoB. This review explicates the physiological mechanisms responsible for the superiority of apoB as a marker of the cardiovascular risk attributable to the atherogenic apoB lipoprotein particles chylomicron remnants, very low-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein particles. First, the nature and relative numbers of these different apoB particles will be outlined. This will make clear why low-density lipoprotein particles are almost always the major determinants of cardiovascular risk and why the concentrations of triglycerides and LDL-C may obscure this relation. Next, the mechanisms that govern the number of very low-density lipoprotein and low-density lipoprotein particles will be outlined because, except for dysbetalipoproteinemia, the total number of apoB particles determines cardiovascular risk, Then, the mechanisms that govern the cholesterol mass within very low-density lipoprotein and low-density lipoprotein particles will be reviewed because these are responsible for the discordance between the mass of cholesterol within apoB particles, measured either as LDL-C or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and the number of apoB particles measured as apoB, which creates the superior predictive power of apoB over LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Finally, the major apoB dyslipoproteinemias will be briefly outlined. Our objective is to provide a physiological framework for health care givers to understand why apoB is a more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk than LDL-C or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations152
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207