***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Background —Nuclear magnetic resonance ( NMR ) offers an alternative , spectroscopic means of quantifying LDL and of measuring LDL particle size . Methods and Results —We conducted a prospect i ve nested case-control study among healthy middle-aged women to assess  LDL particle size ( NMR ) and concentration ( NMR )  as risk factors for future myocardial infa rct ion , stroke , or death of coronary heart disease . Median baseline levels of LDL particle concentration ( NMR ) were higher ( 1597 vs 1404 nmol/L;P = 0.0001 ) and LDL particle size ( NMR ) was lower ( 21.5 vs 21.8 nm;P = 0.046 ) among women who subsequently had cardiovascular events ( n=130 ) than among those who did not ( n= 130 ) . Of these 2 factors , LDL particle concentration (  NMR ) was the stronger predictor ( relative risk for the highest compared with the lowest quartile=4.17 , 95 % CI 1.96–8.87 ) . This compared with a relative risk of 3.11 ( 95 % CI 1.55–6.26 ) for the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol and a relative risk of 5.91 ( 95 % CI 2.65–13.15 ) for C-reactive protein . The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for LDL particle concentration ( NMR ) , total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio , and C-reactive protein were 0.64 , 0.64 , and 0.66 , respectively . LDL particle concentration ( NMR ) correlated with several traditionally assessed lipid and nonlipid risk factors , and thus adjustment for these tended to attenuate the magnitude of association between LDL particle concentration ( NMR ) and risk . Conclusions —In this cohort , LDL particle concentration measured by NMR spectroscopy was a predictor of future cardiovascular risk . However , the magnitude of predictive value of LDL particle concentration  ( NMR ) was not substantively different from that of the total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio and was less than that of C-reactive protein BACKGROUND Recent r and omized clinical trials have suggested that estrogen plus progestin does not confer cardiac protection and may increase the risk of coronary heart disease ( CHD ) . In this report , we provide the final results with regard to estrogen plus progestin and CHD from the Women 's Health Initiative ( WHI ) . METHODS The WHI included a r and omized primary -prevention trial of estrogen plus progestin in 16,608 postmenopausal women who were 50 to 79 years of age at base line . Participants were r and omly assigned to receive conjugated equine estrogens ( 0.625 mg per day ) plus medroxyprogesterone acetate ( 2.5 mg per day ) or placebo . The primary efficacy outcome of the trial was CHD ( nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion or death due to CHD ) . RESULTS After a mean follow-up of 5.2 years ( planned duration , 8.5 years ) , the data and safety monitoring board recommended terminating the estrogen-plus-progestin trial because the overall risks exceeded the benefits . Combined hormone therapy was associated with a hazard ratio for CHD of 1.24 ( nominal 95 percent confidence interval , 1.00 to 1.54 ; 95 percent confidence interval after adjustment for sequential monitoring , 0.97 to 1.60 ) . The elevation in risk was most apparent at one year ( hazard ratio , 1.81 [ 95 percent confidence interval , 1.09 to 3.01 ] ) . Although higher base-line levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were associated with an excess risk of CHD among women who received hormone therapy , higher base-line levels of C-reactive protein , other biomarkers , and other clinical characteristics did not significantly modify the treatment-related risk of CHD . CONCLUSIONS Estrogen plus progestin does not confer cardiac protection and may increase the risk of CHD among generally healthy postmenopausal women , especially during the first year after the initiation of hormone use . This treatment should not be prescribed for the prevention of cardiovascular disease CONTEXT Despite decades of use and considerable research , the role of estrogen alone in preventing chronic diseases in postmenopausal women remains uncertain . OBJECTIVE To assess the effects on major disease incidence rates of the most commonly used postmenopausal hormone therapy in the United States . DESIGN , SETTING , AND PARTICIPANTS A r and omized , double-blind , placebo-controlled disease prevention trial ( the estrogen-alone component of the Women 's Health Initiative [ WHI ] ) conducted in 40 US clinical centers beginning in 1993 . Enrolled were 10 739 postmenopausal women , aged 50 - 79 years , with prior hysterectomy , including 23 % of minority race/ethnicity . INTERVENTION Women were r and omly assigned to receive either 0.625 mg/d of conjugated equine estrogen ( CEE ) or placebo . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was coronary heart disease ( CHD ) incidence ( nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion or CHD death ) . Invasive breast cancer incidence was the primary safety outcome . A global index of risks and benefits , including these primary outcomes plus stroke , pulmonary embolism ( PE ) , colorectal cancer , hip fracture , and deaths from other causes , was used for summarizing overall effects . RESULTS In February 2004 , after review ing data through November 30 , 2003 , the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) decided to end the intervention phase of the trial early . Estimated hazard ratios ( HRs ) ( 95 % confidence intervals [ CIs ] ) for CEE vs placebo for the major clinical outcomes available through February 29 , 2004 ( average follow-up 6.8 years ) , were : CHD , 0.91 ( 0.75 - 1.12 ) with 376 cases ; breast cancer , 0.77 ( 0.59 - 1.01 ) with 218 cases ; stroke , 1.39 ( 1.10 - 1.77 ) with 276 cases ; PE , 1.34 ( 0.87 - 2.06 ) with 85 cases ; colorectal cancer , 1.08 ( 0.75 - 1.55 ) with 119 cases ; and hip fracture , 0.61 ( 0.41 - 0.91 ) with 102 cases . Corresponding results for composite outcomes were : total cardiovascular disease , 1.12 ( 1.01 - 1.24 ) ; total cancer , 0.93 ( 0.81 - 1.07 ) ; total fractures , 0.70 ( 0.63 - 0.79 ) ; total mortality , 1.04 ( 0.88 - 1.22 ) , and the global index , 1.01 ( 0.91 - 1.12 ) . For the outcomes significantly affected by CEE , there was an absolute excess risk of 12 additional strokes per 10 000 person-years and an absolute risk reduction of 6 fewer hip fractures per 10 000 person-years . The estimated excess risk for all monitored events in the global index was a nonsignificant 2 events per 10 000 person-years . CONCLUSIONS The use of CEE increases the risk of stroke , decreases the risk of hip fracture , and does not affect CHD incidence in postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy over an average of 6.8 years . A possible reduction in breast cancer risk requires further investigation . The burden of incident disease events was equivalent in the CEE and placebo groups , indicating no overall benefit . Thus , CEE should not be recommended for chronic disease prevention in postmenopausal women 
    Output:
    
Patients with the metabolic syndrome , but without diabetes , maintained a high cardiovascular risk .
CONCLUSIONS The metabolic syndrome is associated with a 2-fold increase in cardiovascular outcomes and a 1.5-fold increase in all-cause mortality .
Studies are needed to investigate whether or not the prognostic significance of the metabolic syndrome exceeds the risk associated with the sum of its individual components .