MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981951806 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.0009

3042Gender differences in the prevalence of a normal IMT with increasing severity of carotid disease

2019· article· en· W2981951806 on OpenAlexaff
M. Matangi, M Cases, D. Brouillard, D. Armstrong, Amer M. Johri

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreKingston Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAtherosclerosis Risk in CommunitiesCardiologyAnalysis of varianceConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The ARIC group has shown that increasing IMT is only predictive of increased cardiovascular (CV) risk in males (M). Plaque is predictive of increased CV risk in both M and females (F). Purpose To determine the prevalence of a normal IMT (<1.00mm) in M and F with evidence of carotid plaque. Plaque score (PS) was used as a measure of severity of disease. Methods Our database was searched for patients with all the required data, IMT, PS and plaque area. IMT was measured with automatic edge detection software, PS was calculated using the Rotterdam method and plaque area was measured in the carotid bulb and ICA bilaterally. Only the first carotid study was used in the analysis. PS of 0–6 were used to estimate plaque severity. ANOVA and the Fisher's exact test were used to detect differences between groups. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results There were 5981 patients, 3062 M and 2919 F with an average age of 62.1±11.3 years. Table I. indicates that with increasing PS, age, IMT and plaque area all increase, with a reciprocal decrease in the proportion of patients with a normal IMT. Of 3829 patients with carotid plaque 1355 (35.4%) had an IMT <1.00mm. There were clear gender differences with a much higher prevalence of a normal IMT in F with carotid plaque than M, 776 of 1772 (43.8%) versus 579 of 2057 (28.1%), p<0.0001, Fisher's exact test. This gender difference applies to most groups with increasing plaque burden except those with the most severe disease (PS “5–6”). Table 1 PS “0” PS “1” PS “2” PS “3” PS “4” PS “5–6” N 2152 896 1209 792 562 370 ANOVA Age 57.6±12.2 60.4±9.2 63.0±9.5 66.5±9.3 67.8±8.9 71.5±8.8 <0.0001 IMT 0.94±0.32 1.00±0.23 1.08±0.29 1.30±0.55 1.51±0.75 2.77±0.88 <0.0001 Plaque area 0 16.5±11.6 35.1±20.0 58.6±29.9 91.0±43.1 130.4±61.3 <0.0001 Males 1005 424 627 422 331 253 IMT <1.00mm 671 222 226 77 50 4 Percentage 66.8% 52.4% 36.0% 18.2% 15.1% 1.6% Females 1147 472 582 370 231 117 IMT <1.00mm 879 293 288 136 57 2 Percentage 76.6% 62.1% 49.5% 36.8% 24.6% 1.7% Fisher's test <0.0001 <0.005 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 NS PS = Carotid ÷ 6 segments, assigned “0” or “1” if plaque is absent or present. Conclusions Significantly more women with carotid plaque have a normal IMT. This may explain why IMT fails to be predictive of CV risk in women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207