Which biomarkers are predictive specifically for cardiovascular or for non-cardiovascular mortality in men? Evidence from the Caerphilly Prospective Study (CaPS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine a panel of 28 biomarkers for prediction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and non-CVD mortality in a population-based cohort of men. METHODS: Starting in 1979, middle-aged men in Caerphilly underwent detailed medical examination. Subsequently 2171 men were re-examined during 1989-1993, and fasting blood samples obtained from 1911 men (88%). Fibrinogen, viscosity and white cell count (WCC), routine biochemistry tests and lipids were analysed using fresh samples. Stored aliquots were later analysed for novel biomarkers. Statistical analysis of CVD and non-CVD mortality follow-up used competing risk Cox regression models with biomarkers in thirds tested at the 1% significance level after covariate adjustment. RESULTS: During an average of 15.4 years follow-up, troponin (subhazard ratio per third 1.71, 95% CI 1.46-1.99) and B-natriuretic peptide (BNP) (subhazard ratio per third 1.54, 95% CI 1.34-1.78) showed strong trends with CVD death but not with non-CVD death. WCC and fibrinogen showed similar weaker findings. Plasma viscosity, growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) were associated positively with both CVD death and non-CVD death while total cholesterol was associated positively with CVD death but negatively with non-CVD death. C-reactive protein (C-RP), alkaline phosphatase, gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), retinol binding protein 4 (RBP-4) and vitamin B6 were significantly associated only with non-CVD death, the last two negatively. Troponin, BNP and IL-6 showed evidence of diminishing associations with CVD mortality through follow-up. CONCLUSION: Biomarkers for cardiac necrosis were strong, specific predictors of CVD mortality while many inflammatory markers were equally predictive of non-CVD mortality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".