MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414110016 · doi:10.1101/2025.09.09.25335464

ApoA-1 versus HDL-C as Markers of Cardiovascular Risk

2025· preprint· en· W4414110016 on OpenAlexaff
S. Bilgiç, Karol M. Pencina, Michael Pencina, Line Dufresne, George Thanassoulis, Allan D. Sniderman

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidual riskAtherosclerotic cardiovascular diseaseResidualProportional hazards modelHazard ratioRisk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Conflicting results have been reported as to the relative importance of apoA-1 versus HDL-C as markers of ASCVD risk. Methods Residual discordance analysis with Cox proportional hazard models comparing apoA-1 and HDL-C as markers of ASCVD risk was applied to a sample of 291,995 UK Biobank, followed for a median of 11 years. Interaction test for the two markers and estimation of the effects of partitioning HDL-C into apoA-I, log-triglyceride and the remaining residual were also performed. Results ApoA-1 and HDL-C had similar associations with ASCVD risk (HRs of 0.85, p-value < 0.001 for both). The residual of HDL-C added significantly to the risk associated with apoA-1 as did the residual of apoA-1 to HDL-C. There was a statistically significant interaction between apoA-I and HDL-C ( HR = 1.05, 95% CI: (1.04, 1.06); p < 0.001 ). Decomposing HDL-C into the 3 components, apoA-I accounted for the largest portion of the effect with a HR of 0.85 95%CI: (0.83, 0.86) with smaller effects for lnTG: 1.04 (1.02, 1.06) and residual of HDL-C: 0.98 95%CI: (0.96, 0.995). Conclusions HDL-C and apoA-1 have associations of equivalent strength with ASCVD risk with significant interaction modifying the effect of one by the other. Upon decomposition, ApoA-I retained more of the effect of HDL-C as compared to log-triglycerides. While only observational, the results are consistent with the relation of HDL to risk not being determined by the concurrent level of triglyceride. Clinical Perspective The plasma levels of HDL-C and apoA-I are potent predictors of cardiovascular risk. However, there are few data comparing the relative precision of HDL-C and apoA-I for this purpose. Moreover, the risk of low HDL-C has been attributed to concurrent hypertriglyceridemia, consequently downgrading the potential importance of HDL in predicting or explaining risk. Novel Findings Based on residual discordance analysis, HDL-C and apoA-I have similar predictive precision for ASCVD risk. However, each adds significantly to the other and. Moreover, triglycerides account for only a small portion of the risk attributable to HDL with apoA-I accounting for the principal portion. Clinical Significance HDL, whether measured as HDL-C or apoA-I, is a potent predictor of ASCVD risk. It remains essential to search for the biological basis or bases for these relationships.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins→French-language works237,207→