Study protocol: The INTERMAP China Prospective (ICP) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Unfavourable blood pressure (BP) level is an established risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD), while the exact underlying reasons for unfavourable BP are poorly understood. The INTERMAP China Prospective (ICP) Study is a prospective cohort to investigate the relationship of environmental and nutritional risk factors with key indicators of vascular function (BP, arterial stiffness, carotid-intima media thickness) among middle-aged/older men and women. Methods: A total of 839 Chinese participants aged 40-59 years from three diverse regions of China were enrolled in INTERMAP in 1997/98; data collection included repeated BP measurements, 24-hour urine specimens, and 24-hour dietary recalls. In 2015/16, 574 of these 839 persons were re-enrolled along with 208 new participants aged 40-59 years that were randomly selected from the same study villages. Participant’s environmental and dietary exposures and health outcomes were assessed in this open cohort study, including BP, 24-hour dietary recalls, personal exposures to air pollution, grip strength, arterial stiffness, carotid-media thickness and plaques, cognitive function, and sleep patterns. Serum and plasma specimens were collected with 24-hour urine specimens. A follow-up visit has been scheduled for 2020-2021. Discussion: Winter and summer assessments of a comprehensive set of vascular indicators and their environmental and nutritional risk factors were conducted with high precision. We will leverage advances in exposome research to identify biomarkers of exposure to environmental and nutritional risk factors and improve our understanding of the mechanisms and pathways of their hazardous cardiovascular effects. The ICP Study is observational by design, thus subject to several biases including selection bias (e.g., loss to follow-up), information bias (e.g., measurement error), and confounding that we sought to mitigate through our study design and measurements. However, extensive efforts will apply to minimize those limitations (continuous observer training, repeated measurements of BP, standardized methods in data collection and measurements, and on-going quality control).
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.016 |
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".