Ascending aortic diameter is associated with hypertension in Korean men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between ascending aortic diameter (AAD) as measured with low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) and hypertension in Korean men. METHODS: Korean men (n=1,050) who were screened for lung cancer using LDCT imaging at a health promotion center in Seoul, Korea between January 1 and December 31were recruited for the study. AAD is the longest length of ascending aorta measured from approximately 15 mm above left main coronary ostium to the mid-slice level of the right pulmonary artery. RESULTS: AAD were divided into quartiles, and the degree of hypertension was determined based on the quartiles of the AAD using logistic regression. Odds ratios (OR) for the proportion of hypertension in Q2 (1.70, 95% CI: 1.11-2.59), Q3 (2.72, 95% CI: 1.81-4.09) and Q4 (3.94, 95% CI: 2.63-5.89) were significantly greater than that of Q1 (P for trend < 0.001). Even after controlling for confounding covariates of age, BMI, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, fasting glucose, GGT, ALT, eGFR, smoking status and alcohol intake, there was significant correlation. CONCLUSION: AAD was significantly associated with the degree of hypertension.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".