Should preclinical vascular abnormalities be measured in asymptomatic adults to improve cardiovascular risk stratification?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Guideline groups have issued contradictory decisions as to the value of noninvasive tests in asymptomatic adults at intermediate cardiovascular risk. Reclassification has only recently been accepted as a critical criterion to determine the utility of a diagnostic test. The present review examines potential limitations in reclassification and evaluates the utility of carotid ultrasound, pulse wave velocity and ankle brachial index from a clinical perspective. RECENT FINDINGS: Reclassification is less useful than generally believed, because therapy is already indicated in the majority of patients at intermediate risk and it is far from clear that treatment should be withheld in those who are downgraded in risk. Moreover, the additional benefit from more intensive therapy is much less than often thought. Reproducibility, standardization and reference values of noninvasive tests are obligatory before introduction in clinical care. SUMMARY: Routine screening of all those at intermediate risk does not appear to be justified. Screening should be performed on those individuals in whom the noninvasive test changes clinical care, which is most apparent for individuals at intermediate risk with LDL level less than 2.5 mmol/l, in whom positive noninvasive tests will result in the start of statin treatment. The primary value of these tests should not be to determine risk but to identify preclinical anatomic disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".