Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Measurement of Apolipoprotein A-I and A-II Levels in Men and Women by Immunoassay

Open access
Cheung, Marian C., Albers, John J.·1977·Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract

To study apolipoprotein A-II, a simple, precise, and accurate immunodiffusion assay was developed and applied in a population sample of industrial employees. Apolipoprotein A-II (A-II) did not increase with age in men (r = -0.20, n = 172), but showed a slight increase with age in women (0.1 mg/dl per yr, r = 0.20, n = 188). A-II correlated significantly with apolipoprotein A-I (A-I) (r = 0.71) and high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (men, r = 0.64; women, r = 0.49). The A-I/A-II ratio was significantly related to HDL cholesterol (men, r = 0.29; women, r = 0.44). Women on no medication (n = 92) had A-II levels similar to men (34+/-5 and 33+/-5 mg/dl, mean+/-SD, respectively), whereas women on oral contraceptives or estrogens had significantly higher levels (39+/-6 mg/dl, n = 75, P < 0.01). The plasma A-I/A-II weight ratio was 3.6+/-0.4 for men and 3.8+/-0.5 for women. In the d = 1.10-1.21 subfraction, both males and females had similar A-I, A-II, and HDL cholesterol levels (men: mean, 97, 27, and 32 mg/dl, respectively; women: mean, 104, 28, and 36 mg/dl, respectively). Women had approximately twice the amount of A-I, A-II, and HDL cholesterol than men in the d = 1.063-1.10 fraction (men: mean, 10, 2, and 10 mg/dl, respectively; women: mean, 24, 4, and 19 mg/dl, respectively). The A-I/A-II weight ratio in the d = 1.063-1.10 fraction (men, 5.1+/-0.7; women, 6.1+/-1.3) was significantly greater (P < 0.01) than that in the d = 1.10-1.21 fraction (men, 3.7+/-0.2; women, 3.8+/-0.2). Furthermore, the weight ratio of cholesterol to total apoprotein A in the d = 1.063-1.10 fraction (men, 0.75+/-0.09; women, 0.67+/-0.05) was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than that found in the d = 1.10-1.21 fraction (men, 0.26+/-0.04, women, 0.28+/-0.05). Thus, the compositions of HDL hydrated density subclasses are significantly different from each other. These results suggest that the differences in HDL between men and women are due primarily to differences in the relative proportions of HDL subclasses rather than to the intrinsic differences in HDL structure.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1172/jci108767

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 381

Metadata

Authors
Cheung, M. C., & Albers, J. J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Investigation
Published
1977-07-01
Volume
60
Issue
1
Pages
43-50
ISSN
0021-9738 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2083058051
Cited by
381
References
25
FWCI
41.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Measurement of Apolipoprotein A-I and A-II Levels in Men and Women by Immunoassay. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1172/jci108767
The paper
Cheung, M. C., & Albers, J. J. (1977). The Measurement of Apolipoprotein A-I and A-II Levels in Men and Women by Immunoassay. Journal of Clinical Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci108767

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.