Stroke Risk Profile Predicts White Matter Hyperintensity Volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies of cardiovascular risk factors and white matter hyperintensity (WMH) on brain MRI have been limited by the failure to exclude symptomatic cerebrovascular disease and dementia or by the use of semiquantitative rather than quantitative methods to measure WMH volume (WMHV). We examined the relationship between Framingham Stroke Risk Profile (FSRP) and WMHV measured quantitatively in a stroke and dementia-free subset of the Framingham Offspring Cohort. METHODS: Brain MRI was performed in 1814 members of the Framingham Offspring Cohort. Pixel-based quantitative measures of WMHV corrected for head size were obtained using a semiautomated algorithm. WMHV was not normally distributed and therefore was log-transformed (LWMHV). The FSRP and its component risk factors measured a mean of 7.5 years before MRI were related to both continuous measures of LWMHV and to the presence of large volumes of LWMHV (LWMHV-large). All analyses were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: FSRP was strongly associated with LWMHV and LWMHV-large. Age, smoking, history of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and left ventricular hypertrophy by electrocardiogram were all significantly related to LWMHV or LWMHV-large. CONCLUSIONS: FSRP and several cardiovascular risk factors were related to both WMHV measured continuously and to a categorical designation of large volumes of WMH. These findings provide strong evidence of a vascular basis for WMH.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".