Fat and cardiovascular risk: the role of Cardiac CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of computed tomography in cardiovascular risk stratification is well established by means of coronary calcium score (CACS). This role is, as said, well established in asymptomatic individuals, 1,2 but is more controversial in symptomatic patients; in fact, it has been more difficult to extract evidence of incremental value in patients with symptoms. At the same time, after the introduction of coronary computed tomography (CCT), CACS has shown strength in cardiovascular risk stratification on top of conventional risk factors that CCT did not improve significantly, especially in asymptomatic individuals. 5 -8 Eventually, it has been already demonstrated that a modified CACS can be extrapolated even for low-dose thoracic scans performed for other purposes. 9 -12 More recently, epicardial fat (EF) has developed into a reliable (yet not clinical) quantitative measurement of cardiovascular risk. It has been found that EF is associated with greater amounts of CACS.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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".