Abstract TP437: Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis is Associated With Cognitive Impairment in a Chinese Community Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effects of aCAS on cognitive functioning in a Chinese community population who were over 40 year-old and to find the domains of cognitive impairment which were mainly affected. Methods: Information was collected on the presence of CAS, which was assessed by Color Doppler Ultrasound, from the Asymptomatic Polyvascular Abnormalities Community study, and cognitive functioning was assessed by the score of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the relationships between aCAS and cognitive impairment. Results: A total of 812 (61.2% men, 55% of 40-60y) patients were included in this study. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, the associations between the aCAS and cognitive impairment remained significant [odds ratio(OR)(95% confidence interval, 95%CI)=1.812(1.049-3.127)]. Also, there were significant relationships between the aCAS and the domains of cognitive function like attention, language, abstraction and recall [OR(95%CI) 2.740(1.494-5.023), 2.005(1.184-3.396), 2.841(1.594-5.065), 4.674(2.478-8.818) respectively, P < 0.05). In addition, there were no interaction effects of age and other possible risk factors on the association. Conclusion: In the over 40 year-old Chinese community population, aCAS was an independent indicator of cognitive impairment, especially affecting the function of attention, language, abstraction and recall. Table 1 Baseline demographic characteristics and cardiovascular risk factors between groups with/without cognitive impairment Values are median (interquartile range) or number (percent). Table 2 Unadjusted and Multivariate-adjusted OR (95% CI) for total and subtests of MoCA, according to groups with vs. without CAS. *P<0.05;**P<0.001 OR: odd ratio; CI: confidence interval Model 1: adjusted for age and gender. Model 2: adjusted for age, gender, BMI, education, current smoking and alcohol consumption. Model 3:adjusted for age, gender, BMI, education, current smoking, alcohol consumption hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hs-CRP and Hcy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".