Cited by 112Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Non-HDL-cholesterol shows improved accuracy for cardiovascular risk score classification compared to direct or calculated LDL cholesterol in a dyslipidemic population

Open access
van Deventer, Hendrick E, Miller, W Greg, Myers, Gary L, Sakurabayashi, Ikunosuke, Bachmann, Lorin M, Caudill, Samuel P, Dziekonski, Andrzej, Edwards, Selvin +9 more·2011·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non–HDL cholesterol (non–HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS: We examined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturer's direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS: For participants with triglycerides <2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P < 0.05). Non–HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P < 0.05). For participants with triglycerides ≥2.26 mmol/L (≥200 mg/dL) and <4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non–HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS: Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non–HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2010.154773

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Deventer, H. E., Miller, W. G., Myers, G. L., Sakurabayashi, I., Bachmann, L. M., Caudill, S. P., Dziekonski, A., Edwards, S., Kimberly, M. M., Korzun, W. J., Leary, E. T., Nakajima, K., Nakamura, M., Shamburek, R. D., Vetrovec, G. W., Warnick, G. R., & Remaley, A. T.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Jichi Medical University (JP)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
  • Pacific Biomarkers (United States) (US)
  • Otsuka (Japan) (JP)
  • Osaka Medical Center for Health Science and Promotion, Osaka, Japan
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Health Diagnostics Laboratory, Richmond, VA
Corresponding author
Remaley, Alan T
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2011-03-01
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
490-501
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2158071129
Cited by
112
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
9.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Genzyme
  • Pointe Scientific
  • Pacific Biometrics Research Foundation provided
  • Virginia Commonwealth University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
non-HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, cardiovascular risk score, dyslipidemia, Friedewald formula, hypertriglyceridemia, assay comparison, reference measurement procedure, misclassification rate
MeSH terms
Blood Chemical Analysis, Cardiovascular Diseases, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Fasting, Humans, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Triglycerides, Ultracentrifugation, Reproducibility of Results, Case-Control Studies, Risk Assessment, Dyslipidemias

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