Assessment of ethnic inequalities in diagnostic coding of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH): A cross-sectional database study in Lambeth, South London
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Differences in the perceived prevalence of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) by ethnicity are unclear. In this study, we aimed to assess the prevalence, determinants and management of diagnostically-coded FH in an ethnically diverse population in South London. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 40 practices in 332,357 adult patients in Lambeth was undertaken. Factors affecting a (clinically coded) diagnosis of FH were investigated by multi-level logistic regression adjusted for socio-demographic and lifestyle factors, co-morbidities, and medications. RESULTS: The age-adjusted FH % prevalence rate (OR, 95%CI) ranged from 0.10 to 1.11, 0.00-1.31. Lower rates of FH coding were associated with age (0.96, 0.96-0.97) and male gender (0.75, 0.65-0.87), p < 0.001. Compared to a White British reference group, a higher likelihood of coded FH was noted in Other Asians (1.33, 1.01-1.76), p = 0.05, with lower rates in Black Africans (0.50, 0.37-0.68), p < 0.001, Indians (0.55, 0.34-0.89) p = 0.02, and in Black Caribbeans (0.60, 0.44-0.81), p = 0.001. The overall prevalence using Simon Broome criteria was 0.1%; we were unable to provide ethnic specific estimates due to low numbers. Lower likelihoods of FH coding (OR, 95%CI) were seen in non-native English speakers (0.66, 0.53-0.81), most deprived income quintile (0.68, 0.52-0.88), smokers (0.68,0.55-0.85), hypertension (0.62, 0.52-0.74), chronic kidney disease (0.64, 0.41-0.99), obesity (0.80, 0.67-0.95), diabetes (0.31, 0.25-0.39) and CVD (0.47, 0.36-0.63). 20% of FH coded patients were not prescribed lipid-lowering medications, p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Inequalities in diagnostic coding of FH patients exist. Lower likelihoods of diagnosed FH were seen in Black African, Black Caribbean and Indian ethnic groups, in contrast to higher diagnoses in White and Other Asian ethnic groups. Hypercholesterolaemia requiring statin therapy was associated with FH diagnosis, however, the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors lowered the diagnosis rate for FH.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".