Abstract 12216: Age-Related Macular Degeneration as a Predictor of Incidence and Progression of Subclinical Cardiovascular Disease and Cardiovascular Outcomes: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision loss in US adults and shares many similarities with CVD pathophysiology. Hypothesis: We assessed the hypothesis that the presence of AMD would independently predict the incidence and progression of subclinical CVD and CVD events in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Methods: Our cohort consisted of 5,803 adults free of known CVD who had retinal photographs taken during the first follow-up examination of the MESA (Exam 2; Aug 2002-Jan 2004). Photographs were evaluated for AMD using the Wisconsin age-related maculopathy grading system. Coronary artery calcium (CAC), carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), ankle brachial index (ABI), and brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) were assessed at baseline (Exam 1; July 2000-Aug 2002). Changes in CAC and cIMT from Exam 1 were determined at follow-up Exam 5 (April 2010-Dec 2011). Incident CVD events were ascertained from 2002 through 2012. Results: Participants were categorized as AMD+ (n = 244) or AMD- (n = 5,559). Groups did not differ at baseline for cIMT, ABI, or FMD (P>0.19). At Exam 5, 92 AMD+ and 2684 AMD- participants had CAC scores. In those with CAC = 0 at baseline, CAC incidence did not differ between AMD+ (n = 21) and AMD- groups (n = 761). In those with CAC>0, CAC progression was greater in the 46 AMD+ vs. the 1170 AMD- participants after a mean follow-up of 10.4 ± 2.4 years using multivariable-adjusted models (530 ± 537 vs. 339 ± 426 Agatston units, P = 0.004). Ten year cIMT progression (P = 0.85) and incident CVD events (multivariable-adjusted HR (95% CI) = 1.3 (0.9, 1.8); P = 0.20) did not differ between groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, the presence of AMD in a diverse population without known CVD was independently associated with higher 10-year CAC progression in participants with baseline CAC>0. AMD was not associated with CAC incidence, other subclinical CVD markers or CVD events. The association between AMD and CAC progression suggests that AMD is associated with a greater degree of atherosclerosis. Longer follow up of individuals with AMD is warranted to clarify whether greater CAC progression increases risk of CVD events.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".