One, two and three-dimensional ultrasound measurements of carotid atherosclerosis before and after cardiac rehabilitation: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is still not known how patients who are post-transient ischemic attack (TIA) or post-stroke might benefit from prospectively planned comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (CCR). In this pilot evaluation of a larger ongoing randomized-controlled-trial, we evaluated ultrasound (US) measurements of carotid atherosclerosis in subjects following TIA or mild non-disabling stroke and their relationship with risk factors before and after 6-months of CCR. METHODS: Carotid ultrasound (US) measurements of one-dimensional intima-media-thickness (IMT), two-dimensional total-plaque-area (TPA), three-dimensional total-plaque-volume (TPV) and vessel-wall-volume (VWV) were acquired before and after 6-months CCR for 39 subjects who had previously experienced a TIA and provided written informed consent to participate in this randomized controlled trial. We maintained blinding for this ongoing study by representing treatment and control groups as A or B, although we did not identify which of A or B was treatment or control. Carotid IMT, TPA, TPV and VWV were measured before and after CCR as were changes in body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), triglycerides (TG), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in US measurements or risk factors between groups A and B. There was no significant change in carotid ultrasound measurements for group A (IMT, p = .728; TPA, p = .629; TPV, p = .674; VWV, p = .507) or B (IMT, p = .054; TPA, p = .567; TPV, p = .773; VWV, p = .431) at the end of CCR. There were significant but weak-to-moderate correlations between IMT and VWV (r = 0.25, p = .01), IMT and TPV (r = 0.21, p = .01), TPV and TPA (r = 0.60, p < .0001) and VWV and TPV (r = 0.22, p = .02). Subjects with improved TC/HDL ratios showed improved carotid VWV although, this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary evaluation, there were no significant differences in carotid US measurements in the control or CCR group; a larger sample size and/or longer duration is required to detect significant changes in US or other risk factor measurements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".