Risk Factors for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Results of a Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have historically been considered to be a manifestation of atherosclerosis. However, there are epidemiologic and biochemical differences between occlusive atherosclerotic disease and aneurysmal disease of the aorta. A case-control study was performed to investigate risk factors for AAA at the two tertiary care hospitals in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, between June 1992 and December 1995 to investigate risk factors for AAA. Newly diagnosed cases of AAA (n = 98) were compared with non-AAA controls (n = 102), who underwent ultrasound for indications similar to those of the cases. Compared with that for never smokers, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 2.75 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 8.91) for 1-19 pack-years, 7.31 (95% CI: 2.44, 21.9) for 20-34 pack-years, 7.35 (95% CI: 2.40, 22.5) for 35-49 pack-years, and 9.55 (95% CI: 2.81, 32.5) for 50 or more pack-years. Other factors significantly associated with AAA were male gender (OR = 2.68, 95% CI: 1.26, 5.73), diastolic blood pressure (OR per 10 mmHg = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.31, 2.69), and family history of AAA (OR = 4.77, 95% CI: 1.26, 18.1). There was an inverse association between diabetes mellitus and AAA (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.88). Neither clinical hypercholesterolemia nor serum levels of total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high density lipoprotein cholesterol was associated with AAA. The results of this study suggest that the risk factors for AAA differ from those for atherosclerosis and that atherosclerosis per se is not an adequate explanation as the cause of AAAs.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".