MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092110829 · doi:10.1159/000323285

Aortic Arch Calcification and Vascular Disease: The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study

2010· article· en· W2092110829 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lin Xu, Chao Jiang, G. Neil Thomas, Wei Sen Zhang, Kar Keung Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Thrombus and Embolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of BirminghamRyerson University
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineVascular diseaseConfoundingCohortCardiologyAortic archDiseaseBiobankAorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between aortic arch calcification (AAC) and vascular disease in an older Chinese sample. METHODS: For this study, 30,203 Chinese aged 50-85 years were recruited with baseline information on socioeconomic position, lifestyle and vascular risk factors. The presence and severity of AAC were diagnosed independently from chest X-ray by two radiologists. RESULTS: The age-adjusted prevalence of AAC was significantly higher in women than men [34.6% (95% CI 33.9-35.3) vs. 27.9% (95% CI 26.8-28.8), p < 0.001]. Severity of AAC was significantly associated with physician-diagnosed ischemic heart disease (adjusted OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.35-1.79) and combined vascular disease (OR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.30-1.69) after adjusting for multiple potential confounders. Increasing severity of AAC was associated with increased risk for ischemic heart disease and vascular disease (p for trend = 0.02 to <0.001). No association between AAC and stroke was found. CONCLUSIONS: AAC was strongly and independently associated with vascular disease, suggesting that assessment of AAC from chest X-ray, which is noninvasive and relatively inexpensive, can provide useful information for risk stratification of vascular disease, and should be routinely incorporated in chest X-ray examination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiologySame topicAortic Thrombus and EmbolismFrench-language works237,207