MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392954776 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46686-x

Elevated blood remnant cholesterol and triglycerides are causally related to the risks of cardiometabolic multimorbidity

2024· article· en· W4392954776 on OpenAlexaff
Yimin Zhao, Zhenhuang Zhuang, Yueying Li, Wendi Xiao, Zimin Song, Ninghao Huang, Wenxiu Wang, Xue Dong, Jinzhu Jia, Robert Clarke, Tao Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMendelian randomizationMedicineType 2 diabetesCholesterolDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineDiseaseBiobankTriglycerideProspective cohort studyCausality (physics)CardiologyEndocrinologyBioinformaticsBiologyGeneticsGenetic variants

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The connection between triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and cardiometabolic multimorbidity, characterized by the concurrence of at least two of type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and stroke, has not been definitively established. We aim to examine the prospective associations between serum remnant cholesterol, triglycerides, and the risks of progression from first cardiometabolic disease to multimorbidity via multistate modeling in the UK Biobank. We also evaluate the causality of these associations via Mendelian randomization using 13 biologically relevant SNPs as the genetic instruments. Here we show that elevated remnant cholesterol and triglycerides are significantly associated with gradually higher risks of cardiometabolic multimorbidity, particularly the progression of ischemic heart disease to the multimorbidity of ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. These results advocate for effective management of remnant cholesterol and triglycerides as a potential strategy in mitigating the risks of cardiometabolic multimorbidity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations95
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207