The relationship between repeated measurements of HbA1c and risk of coronary events among the common haptoglobin phenotype groups: the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In the ACCORD study, participants with the haptoglobin (Hp) 2–2 phenotype and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 8.0% had a higher risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) compared to those with HbA1c 7.0–7.9%. However, this association was not observed in participants without the Hp2-2 phenotype. The optimal glycemic target for CAD prevention for the Hp phenotypes remains uncertain and may vary based on demographic and clinical factors. Objective To investigate how reaching clinically relevant HbA1c targets relates to the risk of CAD in different Hp phenotype groups among a diverse cohort of individuals with T2DM (the Look AHEAD study, HbA1c ≤ 11% at baseline). Methods Cox regression models with time-varying covariables were used to quantify the association between time-varying achieved HbA1c (< 6.5%, 6.5–6.9%, and ≥ 8.0% compared to 7.0-7.9%), updated at years 1–4, 6, 8, and 10, and incident CAD in the Hp2-2 (n = 1,587) and non-Hp2-2 (n = 2,944) phenotypes separately. Further pre-specified subgroup analyses by age, sex, history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), race, and diabetes duration were performed in each Hp phenotype group separately. Results Compared with HbA1c 7.0-7.9%, having HbA1c < 6.5% was associated with a 29% lower CAD risk among participants with the non-Hp2-2 phenotype (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55–0.90). In subgroup analyses, this association was present in participants with the non-Hp2-2 phenotype who were male (0.60, 0.44–0.83), who did not have a history of CVD (0.65, 0.47–0.90), who were aged ≥ 65 years (0.64, 0.44–0.94), who were White (0.68, 0.51–0.91), or who had diabetes duration > 10 years (0.58, 0.35–0.95). HbA1c ≥ 8.0% was associated with CAD risk only among participants with the Hp2-2 phenotype who had a history of CVD (1.79, 1.00-3.20). No associations were found between the other HbA1c targets and CAD risk when participants with the Hp2-2 phenotype were grouped together or divided into subgroups. Conclusion The differences in our results compared to our previous findings may be due to variations in the study populations and factors associated with weight loss, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Our current findings should be considered in the context of hypothesis generation, and ideally, will encourage additional research in this field.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".