The research on endothelial function in women and men at risk for cardiovascular disease (REWARD) study: methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endothelial function has been shown to be a highly sensitive marker for the overall cardiovascular risk of an individual. Furthermore, there is evidence of important sex differences in endothelial function that may underlie the differential presentation of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women relative to men. As such, measuring endothelial function may have sex-specific prognostic value for the prediction of CVD events, thus improving risk stratification for the overall prediction of CVD in both men and women. The primary objective of this study is to assess the clinical utility of the forearm hyperaemic reactivity (FHR) test (a proxy measure of endothelial function) for the prediction of CVD events in men vs. women using a novel, noninvasive nuclear medicine -based approach. It is hypothesised that: 1) endothelial dysfunction will be a significant predictor of 5-year CVD events independent of baseline stress test results, clinical, demographic, and psychological variables in both men and women; and 2) endothelial dysfunction will be a better predictor of 5-year CVD events in women compared to men. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 1972 patients (812 men and 1160 women) undergoing a dipyridamole stress testing were recruited. Medical history, CVD risk factors, health behaviours, psychological status, and gender identity were assessed via structured interview or self-report questionnaires at baseline. In addition, FHR was assessed, as well as levels of sex hormones via blood draw. Patients will be followed for 5 years to assess major CVD events (cardiac mortality, non-fatal MI, revascularization procedures, and cerebrovascular events). DISCUSSION: This is the first study to determine the extent and nature of any sex differences in the ability of endothelial function to predict CVD events. We believe the results of this study will provide data that will better inform the choice of diagnostic tests in men and women and bring the quality of risk stratification in women on par with that of men.
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 | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".