ApoB Testing in Dyslipidemia Management: Knowledge and Practices of Healthcare Providers in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdulaziz S Altuwalah,1,2 Lama Alfehaid,3– 5 Hussam Alhmoud,6 Alian A Alrasheedy,6 Ibrahim S Alhomoud6 1Pharmacy Services, Second Health Cluster, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, AlMaarefa University, Riyadh, 13713, Saudi Arabia; 3Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 4Pharmaceutical Care Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 5King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 6Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Qassim University, Qassim, 51452, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Ibrahim S Alhomoud, Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Qassim University, Qassim, 51452, Saudi Arabia, Email i.alhomoud@qu.edu.saPurpose: Apolipoprotein B (apoB), a direct measure of atherogenic lipoprotein particles, is recommended by clinical guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment, particularly when low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) underestimates risk. Despite these endorsements, apoB testing remains significantly underutilized in clinical practice. This study evaluated the knowledge and practices of physicians and pharmacists in Saudi Arabia regarding apoB testing and its role in lipid management and cardiovascular risk stratification.Methods: Cross-sectional survey-based study conducted with physicians and pharmacists across healthcare institutions using a validated questionnaire.Results: A total of 158 participants completed the questionnaire, including 80 physicians (50.6%) and 78 pharmacists (49.4%). The overall mean knowledge score was 4.70 ± 3.13 (out of a maximum score of 10). Participants specializing in family medicine, cardiology, and ambulatory care had the highest mean knowledge scores among specialties. Physicians demonstrated a significantly higher knowledge score than pharmacists (6.00 ± 2.99 vs 3.36 ± 2.69; P < 0.001). While 69.6% recognized apoB as a direct measure of atherogenic lipoprotein particles, only 53.8% correctly identified it as the most reliable marker of residual atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in patients with lipid profile discordance. A significantly higher proportion of participants with high knowledge reported measuring apoB levels or considering it whenever available in their practice than those with moderate and low levels of knowledge (88.2%, 53.1%, and 24.1%, respectively; P < 0.001).Conclusion: ApoB testing remains underutilized among physicians and pharmacists in Saudi Arabia despite guideline recommendations. Targeted educational initiatives and national-level strategies are needed to enhance awareness and integration of apoB testing in risk assessment practices.Keywords: apolipoprotein B, atherosclerosis, clinical guidelines, lipoproteins, cardiovascular risk
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".