MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069242486 · doi:10.1038/oby.2008.6

Threshold Values of High‐risk Echocardiographic Epicardial Fat Thickness

2008· article· en· W2069242486 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWaistEpicardial fatInternal medicineInsulin resistanceCardiologyAdipose tissueMetabolic syndromeIntra-Abdominal FatAnthropometryReceiver operating characteristicVisceral fatBody mass indexObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Echocardiographic epicardial adipose tissue is a new index of cardiac and visceral adiposity with great potential as a diagnostic tool and therapeutic target. In this study, we sought to provide threshold values of echocardiographic epicardial fat thickness associated with metabolic and anthropometric risk factors. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Epicardial fat thickness was measured in 246 consecutive white subjects (120 women, 126 men, median age 46 years (30-65), median BMI 32 kg/m(2) (22-52), median waist circumference 100.5 cm (85-140)), who underwent routine transthoracic echocardiogram for standard clinical indications. Metabolic syndrome (MetS), Insulin resistance, BMI, and waist circumference categories were identified and epicardial fat was calculated. RESULTS: Among 246 subjects, 58% had MetS. These subjects showed median values of epicardial fat thickness of 9.5 and 7.5 mm (in men and women, respectively), significantly higher than those found in subjects without MetS (no MetS) (P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis showed that epicardial fat thickness of 9.5 and 7.5 mm maximize the sensitivity and specificity to predict MetS, in men and women, respectively. In separate analyses, median epicardial fat thickness values of 9.5 and 7.5 mm were cutoff points associated with high abdominal fat in men and women, respectively. When insulin sensitivity was considered separately, epicardial fat thickness of 9.5 mm was associated with insulin resistance. DISCUSSION: Median values of 9.5 and 7.5 mm should be considered the threshold values for high-risk echocardiographic epicardial fat thickness in white men and women, respectively. Echocardiographic epicardial fat measurement may be of help for cardiometabolic risk stratification and therapeutic interventions targeting the fat.

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.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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