The association between "hypertriglyceridemic waist" and sub-clinical atherosclerosis in a multiethnic population: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: "Hypertriglyceridemic waist" (HTGW) phenotype, an inexpensive early screening tool for detection of individuals at risk for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease was found to be associated with subclinical atherosclerosis in various patient populations such as those with diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and those infected with human immunodeficiency virus. However, less is known regarding an association between HTGW and subclinical atherosclerosis in the apparently healthy, multiethnic population. Therefore, the aim of the study was to explore the association between HTGW and sub-clinical atherosclerosis in an apparently healthy, multiethnic population; and to investigate whether the effect of HTGW on sub-clinical atherosclerosis persists over and above the traditional atherosclerosis risk factors. METHODS: We studied 809 individuals of Aboriginal, Chinese, European and South Asian origin who were assessed for indices of sub-clinical atherosclerosis (intima-media thickness (IMT), total area and presence of carotid plaques), socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics, anthropometrics, lipids, glucose, blood pressure, and family history of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: We found that, compared to individuals without HTGW and after adjusting for age, ethnicity, smoking, and physical activity; men and women with HTGW had a significantly higher: IMT (men: B (95%CI = 0.084 (0.037, 1.133), p < 0.001; women: B (95%CI) = 0.041 (0.006, 0.077), p = 0.020); and total area (men: B (95%CI = 0.202 (0.058, 0.366), p = 0.005; women: B (95%CI) = 0.115 (0.006, 0.235), p = 0.037). The association between HTGW waist and presence of plaques was significant for men (OR (95%CI) = 1.904 (1.040, 3.486), p = 0.037 vs. men without HTGW), but not for women (p = 0.284). Once analyses were adjusted for additional, traditional risk factors for atherosclerosis, the effect of HTGW on sub-clinical atherosclerosis was no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, HTGW may serve as an early marker of subclinical atherosclerosis in men and women, irrespective of ethnicity. However, once individuals are assessed for all traditional risk factors for atherosclerosis, the additional assessment for HTGW is not warranted.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".