MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391096103 · doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2023.100825

The Causal-Benefit Model to Prevent Cardiovascular Events

2024· article· en· W4391096103 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseAtherosclerotic cardiovascular diseaseIntensive care medicineGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selecting individuals for preventive lipid-lowering therapy is presently governed by the 10-year risk model. Once a prespecified level of cardiovascular disease risk is equaled or exceeded, individuals become eligible for preventive lipid-lowering therapy. A key limitation of this model is that only a small minority of individuals below the age of 65 years are eligible for therapy. However, just under one-half of all cardiovascular disease events occur below this age. Additionally, in many, the disease that caused their events after 65 years of age developed and progressed before 65 years of age. The causal-benefit model of prevention identifies individuals based both on their risk and the estimated benefit from lowering atherogenic apoB lipoprotein levels. Adopting the causal-benefit model would increase the number of younger subjects eligible for preventive treatment, would increase the total number of cardiovascular disease events prevented at virtually the same number to treat, and would be cost-effective.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.193 · 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