Lipoprotein subclasses are associated with Hepatic steatosis: insights from the prospective multicenter imaging study for the evaluation of chest pain (PROMISE) clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the relationship between lipoprotein particle size/number with hepatic steatosis (HS), given its association with traditional lipoproteins and coronary atherosclerosis. Methods: Individuals with available CT data and blood samples enrolled in the PROMISE trial were studied. HS was defined based on CT attenuation. Lipoprotein particle size/number were measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Principal components analysis (PCA) was used for dimensionality reduction. The association of PCA factors and individual lipoprotein particle size/number with HS were assessed in multivariable regression models. Associations were validated in an independent cohort of 59 individuals with histopathology defined HS. Results: Individuals with HS (n=410/1,509) vs those without (n=1,099/1,509), were younger (59±8 vs 61±8 years) and less often females (47.6 % vs 55.9 %). All PCA factors were associated with HS: factor 1 (OR:1.36, 95 %CI:1.21-1.53), factor 3 (OR:1.75, 95 %CI:1.53-2.02) and factor 4 (OR:1.49; 95 %CI:1.32-1.68) were weighted heavily with small low density lipoprotein (LDL) and triglyceride-rich (TRL) particles, while factor 2 (OR:0.86, 95 %CI:0.77-0.97) and factor 5 (OR:0.74, 95 %CI:0.65-0.84) were heavily loaded with high density lipoprotein (HDL) and larger LDL particles. These observations were confirmed with the analysis of individual lipoprotein particles in PROMISE. In the validation cohort, association between HS and large TRL (OR: 8.16, 95 %CI:1.82-61.98), and mean sizes of TRL- (OR: 2.82, 95 %CI:1.14-9.29) and HDL (OR:0.35, 95 %CI:0.13-0.72) were confirmed. Conclusions: Large TRL, mean sizes of TRL-, and HDL were associated with radiographic and histopathologic HS. The use of lipoprotein particle size/number could improve cardiovascular risk assessment in HS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".