MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026556787 · doi:10.1002/brb3.82

Maximum carotid artery wall thickness and risk factors in a young primary prevention population

2012· article· en· W2026556787 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alfred Callahan, Michael Szarek, John W. Patton, Anne‐Sophie Sillesen, Abrill Jones, Keith Churchwell, H. Douglas Holliday

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressurePopulationInternal medicineCardiologyHyperlipidemiaCommon carotid arteryRisk factorAdventitiaCarotid arteriesDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maximum carotid artery wall thickness was utilized in a primary prevention population and compared with baseline risk factors. Carotid wall thickness was measured between the blood-intima and media-adventitia interfaces by B-mode ultrasonography using software calipers at points of protrusion. Long-axis measures were confirmed by short-axis assessment. The maximum carotid wall thickness for each subject was divided by age in years to yield an annual accretion rate (called carotid intima-media thickness accretion rate [CIMTAR]). The entire study population was then divided by median CIMTAR to investigate the association with baseline variables used in standard risk assessments with the bifurcated groups. Traditional risk factors such as age, diabetes, smoking, hyperlipidemia, and obesity were not associated with greater than median CIMTAR. Only male gender (P = 0.02) and systolic blood pressure (P = 0.002) in baseline variables were associated with an elevated CIMTAR for the entire population. Among those not taking lipid-lowering therapy at baseline, only systolic blood pressure remained significant (P = 0.0002). Correlations between low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level and maximum carotid wall thickness/CIMTAR were weak for the entire population (r = -0.17/r = -0.12, respectively). Measure of maximum carotid wall thickness may select patients earlier for treatment than traditional risk factors. The addition of CIMTAR to risk algorithms may permit a single-point assignation of subsequent vascular risk that is more efficacious than traditional risk factors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain and BehaviorSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207