MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Progression as Surrogate Marker for Cardiovascular Risk

2020· review· en· W3033917691 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsHamilton General HospitalPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersNIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research CentreWake Forest School of MedicineStandortagentur TirolBundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und ForschungSyddansk UniversitetMedical Research CouncilLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumBundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und TechnologieNovo NordiskBundesministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und WirtschaftNierstichtingDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNovo Nordisk FondenNewcastle UniversityUniversity of OxfordUniversity of LeicesterPeking UniversityNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchÖsterreichische ForschungsförderungsgesellschaftKonyang UniversityRegeneron PharmaceuticalsMylanEuropean CommissionSanofiKowa CompanyUniversiteit LeidenBritish Heart FoundationUniversitetet i OsloEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsMerck KGaAGöteborgs UniversitetAmgenAustrian Science FundUniversiteit MaastrichtWirtschaftsagentur WienGyeongsang National UniversityCARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Universiteit MaastrichtPfizerFresenius Medical Care North AmericaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilEge ÜniversitesiAstraZenecaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineIntima-media thicknessInternal medicineSurrogate endpointRelative riskRandomized controlled trialCardiologyStroke (engine)Myocardial infarctionConfidence intervalSurgeryCarotid arteries

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To quantify the association between effects of interventions on carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) progression and their effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: We systematically collated data from randomized, controlled trials. cIMT was assessed as the mean value at the common-carotid-artery; if unavailable, the maximum value at the common-carotid-artery or other cIMT measures were used. The primary outcome was a combined CVD end point defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization procedures, or fatal CVD. We estimated intervention effects on cIMT progression and incident CVD for each trial, before relating the 2 using a Bayesian meta-regression approach. RESULTS: We analyzed data of 119 randomized, controlled trials involving 100 667 patients (mean age 62 years, 42% female). Over an average follow-up of 3.7 years, 12 038 patients developed the combined CVD end point. Across all interventions, each 10 μm/y reduction of cIMT progression resulted in a relative risk for CVD of 0.91 (95% Credible Interval, 0.87-0.94), with an additional relative risk for CVD of 0.92 (0.87-0.97) being achieved independent of cIMT progression. Taken together, we estimated that interventions reducing cIMT progression by 10, 20, 30, or 40 μm/y would yield relative risks of 0.84 (0.75-0.93), 0.76 (0.67-0.85), 0.69 (0.59-0.79), or 0.63 (0.52-0.74), respectively. Results were similar when grouping trials by type of intervention, time of conduct, time to ultrasound follow-up, availability of individual-participant data, primary versus secondary prevention trials, type of cIMT measurement, and proportion of female patients. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of intervention effects on cIMT progression predicted the degree of CVD risk reduction. This provides a missing link supporting the usefulness of cIMT progression as a surrogate marker for CVD risk in clinical trials.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.307 · 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