MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Imaging-guided lipid-lowering therapy in rheumatology patients at cardiovascular risk

2025· article· en· W7127944788 on OpenAlexaff
Bahram Pashaee, N Nasibi, A Mueller, V Namdarizandi, Taraneh Zamani, T Char, E Argulian, J Leipsic, J Narula, A. Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionCoronary artery calciumClinical endpointCardiovascular eventCohortRetrospective cohort studyRisk stratificationRisk assessmentCoronary artery disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Patients with rheumatological conditions have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, yet traditional risk stratification tools may underestimate their atherosclerotic burden. Imaging modalities such as coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring, and carotid ultrasound may improve risk assessment and optimize lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Purpose This study evaluates the role of imaging-guided lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in rheumatology-referred patients, aiming to determine its impact on risk stratification, treatment modification, and clinical outcomes. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 121 patients referred by rheumatologists for cardiovascular risk assessment. Cardiovascular risk factors, lipid profiles, and ASCVD risk estimates were obtained. Patients underwent imaging based on an age- and symptom-stratified protocol: CCTA, CAC scoring, or carotid ultrasound. LLT was initiated or adjusted based on imaging findings, targeting an LDL goal of ≤70 mg/dL for patients with atherosclerosis and ≤130 mg/dL for those without. The primary endpoint was LDL reduction, and secondary outcomes included reclassification rates and cardiovascular event occurrence. Results Atherosclerosis was detected in 85 patients (70%), despite only 69 (57%) having an ASCVD risk ≥5% per standard calculators. Imaging led to reclassification in 25.6% of patients, resulting in LLT intensification in 42.4% of patients not indicated for treatment per AHA guidelines and de-escalation in 19.3% of those previously indicated for treatment. Post-treatment, LDL reduction was 35.9% in atherosclerotic patients, compared to 17.9% in non-atherosclerotic patients. Over a mean follow-up of 4.8 ± 1.4 years, no major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction [MI], cerebrovascular accident [CVA], or unplanned revascularization) were observed, despite an expected event rate of 3.4%–7.6% based on five different risk estimation models. Conclusion Incorporating atherosclerosis imaging into routine evaluation for individuals with rheumatological conditions enhances risk stratification, allows for personalized treatment strategies, and was associated with a lower rate of cardiovascular events compared with what was predicted by traditional risk-based approaches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→