Triglycerides revisited: is hypertriglyceridaemia a necessary therapeutic target in cardiovascular disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk reduction achieved by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering therapy, residual ASCVD risk still exists. Previous epidemiological studies have suggested high plasma triglyceride (TG) levels as a risk factor or risk marker for ASCVD independent of LDL-C levels. In this review, we highlighted the underlying pathophysiology of hypertriglyceridaemia, the mechanistic action of therapeutic agents, the interpretation of conflicting results on recent clinical trials, and the present options for primary and secondary prevention. The benefits of fibrates-induced reduction in TG and increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol might outweigh the disadvantages of increasing LDL-C levels in primary prevention. In secondary CVD prevention, using eicosapentaenoic acid without docosahexaenoic acid, in addition to statins, will be beneficial. This comprehensive review may prove useful for the development of novel approaches that target hypertriglyceridaemia in future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".