English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Apolipoprotein B 100  (ApoB 100 ) determination is superior to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to establish cardiovascular (CV) risk, and does not require prior fasting. ApoB 100  is rarely measured alongside standard lipids, which precludes comprehensive assessment of dyslipidemia.    Objectives  To evaluate two simple algorithms for apoB 100  as regards their performance, equivalence and discrimination with reference apoB 100  laboratory measurement.    Methods  Two apoB 100 -predicting equations were compared in 87 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients using the  Discriminant ratio  (DR).  Equation 1 : apoB 100  = 0.65*non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol + 6.3; and  Equation 2 : apoB 100  = −33.12 + 0.675*LDL-C + 11.95* ln [triglycerides]. The  underlying  between-subject standard deviation (SD U ) was defined as SD U  = √ (SD 2  B  - SD 2  W /2); the  within -subject variance (V w ) was calculated for m (2) repeat tests as (V w ) = Σ(x j  -x i ) 2 /(m-1)), the within-subject SD (SD w ) being its square root; the DR being the ratio SD U /SD W .    Results  All SD u , SD w  and DR’s values were nearly similar, and the observed differences in discriminatory power between all three determinations, i.e. measured and calculated apoB 100  levels, did not reach statistical significance. Measured Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients between all apoB 100  determinations were very high, respectively at 0.94 (measured vs.  equation 1 ); 0.92 (measured vs.  equation 2 ); and 0.97 ( equation 1  vs.  equation 2 ), each measurement reaching unity after adjustment for attenuation.    Conclusion  Both apoB 100  algorithms showed biometrical equivalence, and were as effective in estimating apoB 100  from routine lipids. Their use should contribute to better characterize residual cardiometabolic risk linked to the number of atherogenic particles, when direct apoB 100  determination is not available.

Discriminant ratio and biometrical equivalence of measured vs. calculated apolipoprotein B100 in patients with T2DM