MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412084917 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2025.06.021

Implementing Dyslipidemia Guidelines into Clinical Practice Following an Acute Coronary Syndrome: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

2025· article· en· W4412084917 on OpenAlexafffund
Alisha Labinaz, R. Yao, Farshad Hosseini, Ricky D. Turgeon, Miles Marchand, Liam R. Brunham, Nathaniel M. Hawkins, Graham C. Wong, G.B. John Mancini, Christopher B. Fordyce

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNovo NordiskSanofiCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyNovartisHLS TherapeuticsPfizerAmgen
KeywordsDyslipidemiaAcute coronary syndromeMedicineClinical PracticeIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyMyocardial infarctionObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), patients remain at a residual increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. As such, secondary prevention strategies, including dyslipidemia management, are key in the delivery of post-ACS care. Multiple randomized controlled trials have highlighted the benefit of lipid-lowering therapies in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular events post-ACS. However, registries have demonstrated that post-ACS, a significant proportion of patients are not achieving guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein target levels, and intensification of lipid-lowering therapies continues to be underutilized. This review assesses strategies in which post-ACS lipid management can be improved, in particular by standardizing follow-up care through dedicated post-ACS clinics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207