MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407983857 · doi:10.21037/cdt-24-162

Elevated lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular outcomes in prediabetes and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4407983857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sidhartha Gautam Senapati, Vamsikalyan Borra, Lakshmi Kattamuri, Naga Vamsi Krishna Machineni, Nithya Borra, Sindhuja Kukkala, Karthikeya Ramasahayam, Kesar Prajapati, Parth R. Nayak, Santosh Kale, Akhil Jain, Ankit Vyas, Rupak Desai

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrediabetesMedicineMeta-analysisDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineType 2 diabetesEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and diabetes have been identified as potential risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD). This study investigates various Lp(a) levels’ impact on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events in pre-diabetics and diabetics. Methods: We included retrospective studies in English until May 2023, exploring the link between high Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes in humans with diabetes, prediabetes, or normal glucose levels. Studies were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, emphasizing detailed population and outcome data. We excluded studies with major methodological issues, low-quality data, missing key information, duplicates, and non-human subjects. We included high-quality retrospective studies on Lp(a) and cardiovascular outcomes, using risk of bias tools like Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to ensure data integrity, and resolved discrepancies through discussion. Binary random-effects models were employed to estimate pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Leave one out sensitivity analysis was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. For outcomes showing moderate or high heterogeneity, subgroup analyses were performed for follow-up duration or type of study. Results: A total of 20,271 patients with diabetes, prediabetes, and non-diabetics were included from three studies. In our analysis, compared to non-diabetics with Lp(a) <10 mg/dL, the risk of ASCVD increased with an increase in Lp(a) levels among pre-diabetics [Lp(a) <10 mg/dL (HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.17–1.67), Lp(a) 10–30 mg/dL (HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.30–1.96), Lp(a) >30 mg/dL (HR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.49–2.90)] and diabetics [Lp(a) <10 mg/dL (HR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.97–2.98), Lp(a) 10–30 mg/dL (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.64–3.12), Lp(a) >30 mg/dL (HR: 4.17, 95% CI: 3.24–5.37)] with statistical significance (P<0.01). Conclusions: High Lp(a) (>30 mg/dL) is associated with more ASCVD events in diabetics and pre-diabetics vs. Lp(a) <30 mg/dL, underscoring Lp(a)’s clinical importance in risk stratification and intervention.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0330.017
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular Diagnosis and TherapySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207