MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277374109

The fate of endothelial function testing: rationale and design of the Firefighters And Their Endothelium (FATE) study.

2003· article· en· W2277374109 on OpenAlexaffabout
Todd J. Anderson, Annette C Roberts, Kathy Hildebrand, H. Conradson, Charlotte Jones, Pete Bridge, S M Edworthy, Eva Lonn, Subodh Verma, François Charbonneau

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndotheliumEndothelial dysfunctionVascular diseaseSubclinical infectionDiseaseProspective cohort studyCardiologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endothelial dysfunction plays a pivotal role in the development and progression of atherosclerotic vascular disease. The endothelium is strategically located between blood and vascular smooth muscle, making it both vulnerable to a variety of injurious stimuli but also available for interrogation as a marker of vascular health. Firefighters And Their Endothelium (FATE) is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study designed to assess the relationship between endothelial function, emerging cardiovascular risk factors and ultimately atherosclerotic vascular disease. It is hypothesized that participants with impaired endothelial function will be at increased risk of atherosclerotic complications. This Canadian initiative will recruit 1600 middle-aged participants with no known history of cardiovascular disease to be followed for cardiovascular events over the next decade. Quantitative B-mode ultrasound will be employed to assess endothelial function and subclinical atherosclerosis. This research is designed to redefine the approach to the primary prevention of atherosclerosis.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207