Evidence Library

Scientific References

The research behind Metabolicum's evidence-based approach

How We Evaluate Evidence

Not all research is equal. We assign confidence grades to each source based on study design, sample size, replication status, and methodology. This helps you understand how confident you can be in each finding.

Click any grade to learn more

Grade A

High Confidence

Replicated findings across multiple well-designed studies

Grade B

Good Confidence

Well-designed single studies with strong methodology

Grade C

Moderate Confidence

Observational data with consistent patterns

Grade D

Emerging Evidence

Mechanistic or theoretical - interpret cautiously

Grade E

Clinical Consensus

Practitioner experience without formal trials

Understanding the Reproducibility Crisis

Why are we so careful about evidence grading? Because a significant portion of published research fails to replicate.

Study	Finding	Grade
Begley & Ellis, 2012	Only 21% of landmark cancer studies could be replicated	A
Open Science Collaboration, 2015	Only 36% of psychology studies replicated	A
Ioannidis, 2005	Theoretical framework explaining why most findings are false	A

This doesn't mean you should distrust all research. It means:

•Single studies warrant caution — Replication matters
•Peer review is necessary but not sufficient — Many peer-reviewed findings are later overturned
•Effect size matters more than p-values — Statistical significance ≠ practical importance
•Longer studies are generally more reliable — Short-term biomarker changes may not reflect long-term outcomes

We grade evidence honestly so you can calibrate your confidence appropriately.

Research Library

In-depth analysis of foundational studies with translated summaries

Showing studies cited on: Non-HDL Calculator

Topic

Paradigm

Evidence Grade

Study Type

Cited On

Showing 5 studies

Cohort Study

Cui 2001: Non-HDL-C Predicts CVD Mortality Better Than LDL-C

Cui Y, et al. • Archives of Internal Medicine • 2001

A 30 mg/dL increase in non-HDL-C corresponded to 19% increased CVD risk in men (vs 15% for LDL-C) and 11% in women (vs 8% for LDL-C).

Lipid MetabolismCardiovascularmortality

Clinical Guideline

ATP III 2002: Non-HDL-C as Secondary Treatment Target

NCEP ATP III • Circulation • 2002

Non-HDL-C target is set 30 mg/dL higher than LDL-C target. For high-risk patients: LDL-C <100 mg/dL corresponds to non-HDL-C <130 mg/dL.

lipid managementguidelinesCardiovascular

Review Article

Sniderman 2003: ApoB and Non-HDL-C Superior to LDL-C

Sniderman AD, et al. • Lancet • 2003

ApoB and non-HDL-C provide superior cardiovascular risk prediction compared to LDL-C, particularly when triglycerides are elevated and LDL particles are small and dense.

Lipid MetabolismCardiovascularrisk assessment

Cohort Study

Liu 2006: Non-HDL-C in Metabolic Syndrome Patients

Liu J, et al. • Atherosclerosis • 2006

Non-HDL-C levels strongly correlated with metabolic syndrome components and provided better risk stratification than LDL-C in patients with elevated triglycerides.

Metabolic SyndromeLipid MetabolismCardiovascular

Clinical Guideline

ACC/AHA 2019: Cholesterol Management Guidelines

Grundy SM, et al. • Journal of the American College of Cardiology • 2019

Non-HDL-C is recommended as a secondary treatment target after LDL-C goals are achieved. For very high-risk patients, consider non-HDL-C <100 mg/dL.

lipid managementCardiovascularguidelines

How We Use References

In Calculators

Primary thresholds come from Grade A sources. When Grade A evidence suggests a range rather than a single value, we present the range with context.

In Educational Content

We draw on Grades A-C for educational claims, clearly labeling evidence quality. Grade D and E content is marked as theoretical or practitioner-derived.

In Paradigm Frameworks

Standard Medical: Grade A (established guidelines)
Research Consensus: Grade A-B (outcome research)
Metabolic Optimization: Grade B-E (intervention research + clinical consensus)

Evidence Grades

Grade A: High ConfidenceReplicated findings across multiple studies Grade B: Good ConfidenceWell-designed single studies Grade C: Moderate ConfidenceObservational data with consistent patterns Grade D: Emerging EvidenceMechanistic or theoretical Grade E: Clinical ConsensusPractitioner consensus

Other Pages

Our MethodologyHow we approach health information Four Clinical FrameworksWhy we show multiple interpretations

Our Methodology

This bibliography contains the research supporting Metabolicum's evidence-based approach.

Last comprehensive review: December 2025