ArticleJournal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis2024
The Risk of Coronary Artery Calcification according to Different Lipid Parameters and Average Lipid Parameters.
Article in Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Paradox of Physical Activity and Coronary Artery Calcification: Implications for Cardiovascular Risk.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Extrahepatic Vitamin K-Dependent Gla-Proteins-Potential Cardiometabolic Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe compared the association between the baseline and average lipid parameters over time and the coronary artery calcification (CAC) risk.
methodsParticipants who underwent annual (biannual) health examinations and coronary artery computed tomography to measure CAC at least twice between March 2010 and December 2019, with a baseline CAC of 0, were included. The levels of apolipoprotein B (ApoB), Apolipoprotein A-I (ApoA1), ApoB/ApoA1, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), TG/HDL-C, and TC/HDL-C were measured or calculated. The remnant cholesterol (RC) levels were calculated. The average lipid parameters before study entry were calculated using data from 2002 to 2010. The participants were divided into quartiles (Q) according to the parameter values. Cox proportional hazard modeling, adjusted for confounding factors, compared the CAC risk of the highest quartile to the lowest quartile.
resultsAmong 29,278 participants (mean age, 39.19±5.21; men, 88.27%), 2,779 developed CAC ＞0. The highest quartile of ApoB showed a numerically strong association with CAC risk, compared with the lowest quartile of ApoB (Q1: reference; Q2: HR,1.41, 95% CI,1.25-1.59; Q3: HR,1.97, 95% CI,1.75-2.21; Q4: HR,2.72, 95% CI,2.41-3.07). RC showed a modest association with CAC risk (Q1: reference; Q2: HR,1.13, 95% CI,0.99-1.28; Q3: HR,1.3, 95% CI,1.15-1.47; Q4: HR,1.7, 95% CI,1.51-1.91). The strength of the association was comparable between the parameters at baseline and the average lipid parameters over time.
conclusionsA high ApoB level showed a strong association with CAC risk compared with the lowest ApoB quartile. The baseline lipid parameters can predict CAC development as effectively as the average of multiple measurements can.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.