Variation in the Carotid Bifurcation Geometry of Young Versus Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Retrospective analysis of clinical data has demonstrated major variations in carotid bifurcation geometry, in support of the notion that an individual's vascular anatomy or local hemodynamics may influence the development of atherosclerosis. On the other hand, anecdotal evidence suggests that vessel geometry is more homogenous in youth, which would tend to undermine this geometric risk hypothesis. The purpose of our study was to test whether the latter is indeed the case. METHODS: Cross-sectional images of the carotid bifurcations of 25 young adults (24+/-4 years) and a control group of 25 older subjects (63+/-10 years) were acquired via MRI. Robust and objective techniques were developed to automatically characterize the 3D geometry of the bifurcation and the relative dimensions of the internal, external, and common carotid arteries (ICA, ECA, and CCA, respectively). RESULTS: Young vessels exhibited significantly less interindividual variation in the following geometric parameters: bifurcation angle (48.5+/-6.3 degrees versus 63.6+/-15.4 degrees); ICA angle (21.6+/-6.7 degrees versus 29.2+/-11.3 degrees); CCA tortuosity (0.010+/-0.003 versus 0.014+/-0.011); ICA tortuosity (0.025+/-0.013 versus 0.086+/-0.105); ECA/CCA diameter ratio (0.81+/-0.06 versus 0.75+/-0.13), ICA/CCA (0.81+/-0.06 versus 0.77+/-0.12) diameter ratio, and bifurcation area ratio (1.32+/-0.15 versus 1.19+/-0.35). CONCLUSIONS: The finding of more modest interindividual variations in young adults suggests that, if there is a geometric risk for atherosclerosis, its early detection may prove challenging. Taken together with the major interindividual variations seen in older vessels, it suggests a more complex interrelationship between vascular geometry, local hemodynamics, vascular aging, and atherosclerosis, the elucidation of which now calls for prospective studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".