Sex Differences in Carotid Plaque and Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Women are relatively protected from cardiovascular events; they are 3 times as likely as men to survive to age 90 years. Although clinical trials show an excess of thrombotic events with estrogen/progestin hormone replacement therapy, much experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests that estrogen may have beneficial effects on endothelial function and atherosclerosis, raising the possibility of sex differences in arterial remodeling. We studied sex differences in carotid plaque and stenosis in relation to survival free of stroke, death, and myocardial infarction. METHODS: A total of 1686 patients from an atherosclerosis prevention clinic were followed annually for up to 5 years (mean, 2.5+/-1.3 years) with baseline and follow-up measurements; there were 45 strokes, 94 myocardial infarctions, and 41 deaths. RESULTS: Carotid stenosis and plaque increased with age. Women had greater stenosis compared with men (P=0.001), whereas men had greater plaque area than did women at all ages (P<0.0001). Stroke, myocardial infarction, and death combined were predicted significantly by plaque area (P=0.004) but not by stenosis (P=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Women have more stenosis but less plaque than men, suggesting that differences in sex hormones may affect remodeling of atherosclerosis. Plaque area was a stronger predictor of outcomes than was stenosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".