MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161943662 · doi:10.82308/27706

Usefulness of the 1998 American academy of pediatrics recommendations to screen children and adolescents for raised blood low density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels

2004· dissertation· en· W7161943662 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Béatrice Lauzon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDermatoglyphics and Human Traits
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationFamily historyPredictive valueGold standard (test)CholesterolFamilial hypercholesterolemiaDiseaseCross-sectional study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children and adolescents with a family history of premature cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or parental total cholesterol (TC) ≥6.2 mmol/L be screened for hypercholesterolemia. Questionnaires (from children and parents), clinical and blood sample data were collected in a provincially representative sample of 9-, 13-, and 16-year-olds (n = 2217) in Quebec to evaluate the usefulness of parental history (PH) of CVD and/or parental hypercholesterolemia to screen youth for raised low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Mean bias assessed by an external laboratory gold standard ranged from 1.0% to 2.1%, -0.4% to 5.1%, and -1.4% to 0.1% according to TC, triglyceride, and high density lipoprotein cholesterol tertiles. LDL-C was calculated using the Friedewald equation. Positive PH was defined as one/both biological parents diagnosed with a high cholesterol level, and/or taking cholesterol-lowering medication, and/or ever having had a heart attack, angina, stroke, cerebral vascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, and/or taking medication 'for the heart'. Performance statistics were calculated to determine the usefulness of PH in predicting borderline/high LDL-C (LDL-C ≥2.8 mmol/L) and high LDL-C (LDL-C ≥3.4 mmo1/L). 18.3% and 4.8% of subjects had borderline/high LDL-C and high LDL-C; positive predictive value (PPV) was 23.7% and 7.7%, respectively. Therefore PPVs were only marginally higher than the corresponding population prevalences and likelihood ratios were respectively 1.38 and 1.63: close to 1.00. In conclusion, PH offers little improvement over random screening.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDermatoglyphics and Human TraitsFrench-language works237,207