Association of Total Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I, Insulin-Like Growth Factor Binding Protein-1 (IGFBP-1), and IGFBP-3 Levels with Incident Coronary Events and Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Prior observational studies have demonstrated that the GH/IGF axis is associated with cardiovascular disease. However, this association has not been extensively studied among older adults. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the association between levels of total IGF-I and IGF binding proteins (IGFBP-1, IGFBP-3) and risk of incident coronary events and ischemic stroke. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A case-cohort analysis was conducted among adults 65 yr and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A total of 534 coronary events [316 nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MIs), 48 fatal MIs, and 170 fatal coronary heart disease events] and 370 ischemic strokes were identified on follow-up. Comparison subjects were 1122 randomly selected participants from the Cardiovascular Health Study. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 6.7 yr for coronary events, 5.6 yr for strokes, and 9.3 yr for comparison subjects. Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) associated with baseline levels of total IGF-I and IGFBPs were estimated using multivariate adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Neither IGF-I nor IGFBP-1 levels predicted risk of incident coronary events or stroke. IGFBP-3 had an inverse association with risk of coronary events [adjusted hazard ratio per sd=0.88 (0.78-1.00), P=0.05] but was not associated with stroke. Exploratory analyses suggested that low IGF-I and low IGFBP-3 levels were significantly associated with higher risk of nonfatal MI (P<0.05) but not with risk of fatal MI or fatal coronary heart disease. CONCLUSION: Circulating levels of total IGF-I or IGFBP-1 were not associated with risk of total coronary events or ischemic stroke among older adults, whereas low IGFBP-3 level was associated with increased risk of incident coronary events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".