Comparison of Current International Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dyslipidemia guidelines of the three major societies have been revised recently in light of new evidence. LDL-C is the primary target in the ESC, AHA/ACC/Multisociety and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines. These guidelines uniformly recommend intensifying lipid-lowering treatment with increased risk; however, the risk estimation systems are different across the guidelines. The ESC guidelines have LDL-C goals which have become more stringent over the years and advocate the use of statin and, if necessary, non-statin therapies to obtain these goals. AHA/ACC/Multisociety guidelines have LDL-C thresholds and advocate combination therapy less liberally and for selected patients. All three guidelines acknowledge the importance of shared decision making. Despite some divergent approaches and recommendations, the main principles and messages are the same across the guidelines. To combat the epidemic of cardiovascular disease, our focus should be not on the differences but on implementing the guidelines in our region.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".