MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Did the Updated 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society Risk Categorization for Patients with Diabetes Affect the Risk Perception and Lipid Goals? A Simulated Analysis of Real-life Data from EPHESUS Study

2023· article· en· W4318827072 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Özcan Başaran

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatolian Journal of Cardiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDyslipidemiaDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineObservational studyCardiologyCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyNational Cholesterol Education ProgramIntensive care medicineEndocrinologyMetabolic syndromeMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The recent 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society practice guidelines introduced a new risk categorization for patients with diabetes. We aimed to compare the implications of the 2016 and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines with regard to the lipid-lowering treatment use, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment rates, and the estimated proportion of patients who would be at goal in an ideal setting. METHODS: Patients with diabetes were classified into 4 risk categories according to 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society dyslipidemia guidelines from the database of EPHESUS (cross-sectional, observational, countrywide registry of cardiology outpatient clinics) study. The use of lipid-lowering treatment and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment rates were then compared according to previous and new guidelines. RESULTS: This analysis included a total of 873 diabetic adults. Half of the study population (53.8%) were on lipid-lowering treatment and almost one-fifth (19.1%) were on high-intensity statins. While low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal was achieved in 19.5% and 7.5% of patients, 87.4% and 69.6% would be on target if their lipid-lowering treatment was intensified according to 2016 and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society lipid guidelines, respectively. The new target <55 mg/dL could only be achieved in 2.2% and 8.1% of very high-risk primary prevention and secondary prevention patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The control of dyslipidemia was extremely poor among patients with diabetes. The use of lipid-lowering treatment was not at the desired level, and high-intensity lipid-lowering treatment use was even lower. Our simulation model showed that the high-dose statin plus ezetimibe therapy would improve goal attainment; however, it would not be possible to get goals with this treatment in more than one-third of the patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatolian Journal of CardiologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207