Reduced lipoprotein (a) in patients with severe hypertriglyceridaemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the relationship between plasma lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) and lipid profiles in patients with severe hypertriglyceridaemia (HTG). Methods This case–control study undertook a retrospective chart review of patients from the Lipid Genetics Clinic at London Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, Canada. Plasma Lp(a) was compared between patients with severe HTG and healthy normolipidaemic control subjects. Severe HTG was defined by plasma triglycerides (TG) ≥ 10 mmol/l. Pairwise correlations between Lp(a), TG, apolipoprotein B (apo B) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) were evaluated. Results This study reviewed 4400 patients and identified 154 patients with severe HTG, which were compared with 272 control subjects. The median Lp(a) was significantly lower in patients with severe HTG compared with control subjects (5.0 versus 10.2 mg/dl, respectively). No correlation was observed between Lp(a) and TG or non-HDL-C. Lp(a) and apo B were modestly correlated in patients with severe HTG ( r = 0.235) and control subjects ( r = 0.175). There were no significant differences between the genetic subgroups of patients with severe HTG. Conclusions Patients with severe HTG have lower plasma Lp(a) than normolipidaemic control subjects. The basis for this relationship is not immediately apparent but is hypothesis-generating and warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".