MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevalence, Distribution, and Risk Factor Correlates of High Pericardial and Intrathoracic Fat Depots in the Framingham Heart Study

2010· article· en· W2139839031 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAdipose tissueFramingham Heart StudyWaistPericardiumIntra-Abdominal FatInternal medicineRisk factorEpicardial fatObesityCardiologyBody mass indexFramingham Risk ScoreVisceral fatDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pericardial and intrathoracic fat depots may represent novel risk factors for obesity-related cardiovascular disease. We sought to determine the prevalence, distribution, and risk factor correlates of high pericardial and intrathoracic fat deposits. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants from the Framingham Heart Study (n=3312; mean age, 52 years; 48% women) underwent multidetector CT imaging in 2002 to 2005; high pericardial and high intrathoracic fat were defined on the basis of the sex-specific 90th percentile for these fat depots in a healthy reference sample. For men and women, the prevalence of high pericardial fat was 29.3% and 26.3%, respectively, and high intrathoracic fat was 31.4% and 35.3%, respectively. Overall, 22.1% of the sample was discordant for pericardial and intrathoracic fat depots: 8.3% had high pericardial but normal intrathoracic fat and 13.8% had high intrathoracic but normal pericardial fat. Higher body mass index, higher waist circumference, and increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome were more prevalent in participants with high intrathoracic fat depots than with high pericardial fat (P<0.05 for all comparisons). High abdominal visceral adipose tissue was more frequent in participants with high intrathoracic adipose tissue compared with those with high pericardial fat (P<0.001). Intrathoracic fat but not waist circumference was more highly correlated with visceral adipose tissue (r=0.76 and 0.78 in men and women, respectively; P<0.0001) than with subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) (r=0.46 and 0.54 in men and women, respectively; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although prevalence of pericardial fat and intrathoracic fat were comparable at 30%, intrathoracic fat correlated more closely with metabolic risk and visceral fat. Intrathoracic fat may be a potential marker of metabolic risk and visceral fat on thoracic imaging.

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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.231 · 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