Comparison of brachial and carotid artery ultrasound for assessing extent of subclinical atherosclerosis in HIV: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive surrogate measures which are valid and responsive to change are needed to study cardiovascular risks in HIV. We compared the construct validity of two noninvasive arterial measures: carotid intima medial thickness (IMT), which measures anatomic disease; and brachial flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD), a measure of endothelial dysfunction. METHODS: A sample of 257 subjects aged 35 years or older, attending clinics in five Canadian centres, were prospectively recruited into a study of cardiovascular risk among HIV subjects. The relationship between baseline IMT or FMD and traditional vascular risk factors was studied using regression analysis. We analyzed the relationship between progression of IMT or FMD and risk factors using fixed-effects models. We adjusted for use of statin medication and CD4 count in both models. RESULTS: Baseline IMT was significantly associated with age (p < 0.001), male gender (p = 0.034), current smoking status (p < 0.001), systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001) and total:HDL cholesterol ratio (p = 0.004), but not statin use (p = 0.904) and CD4 count (p = 0.929). IMT progression was significantly associated with age (p < 0.001), male gender (p = 0.0051) and current smoking status (p = 0.011), but not statin use (p = 0.289) and CD4 count (p = 0.927). FMD progression was significantly associated with current statin use (p = 0.019), but not CD4 count (p = 0.84). Neither extent nor progression of FMD was significantly associated with any of the examined vascular risk factors. CONCLUSION: IMT correlates better than FMD with established cardiovascular risk factors in this cohort of HIV patients. Standardization of protocols for FMD and IMT will facilitate the comparison of results across studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".