trailMendelian randomization and statin-trial estimates of LDL's cardiovascular effect are mutually consistent once duration of exposure is accounted for
Genetic instruments for LDL cholesterol affect cardiovascular risk only through LDL and not through confounding pleiotropy
Reconciliation via cumulative lifelong exposure· for
Statin randomized trials reduce major vascular events by about a fifth per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol
atomic
Mendelian randomization estimates roughly threefold greater cardiovascular risk reduction per mmol/L lower LDL than statin randomized trials
Mendelian randomization studies estimate roughly 50-55% lower coronary heart disease risk per mmol/L lower LDL cholesterol
The cardiovascular risk reduction per unit of LDL lowering increases with longer duration of exposure
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Mendelian randomization and statin-trial estimates of LDL's cardiovascular effect are mutually consistent once duration of exposure is accounted for
✓VerifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →credence 0.92Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
1depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment — the Steward prioritises higher-importance claims, so this one is likely still queued.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. — detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.