Prevalence and Characterization of Subclinical Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque with CT among Individuals with HIV: Results from the Canadian HIV and Aging Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background People living with HIV (PLWH) have a higher risk of myocardial infarction. Coronary atherosclerotic plaque CT characterization helps to predict cardiovascular risk. Purpose To measure CT characteristics of coronary plaque in PLWH without known cardiovascular disease and healthy volunteers without HIV. Materials and Methods In this prospective study, noncontrast CT (all participants, n = 265) was used for coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring in asymptomatic PLWH and healthy volunteers without HIV, without known cardiovascular disease, from 2012 to 2019. At coronary CT angiography (n = 233), prevalence, frequency, and volume of calcified, mixed, and noncalcified plaque were measured. Poisson regressions were used with adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors. Results There were 181 PLWH (mean age, 56 years ± 7; 167 men) and 84 healthy volunteers (mean age, 57 years ± 8; 65 men) evaluated by using noncontrast CT. CT angiography was performed in 155 PLWH and 78 healthy volunteers. Median 10-year Framingham risk score was not different between PLWH and healthy volunteers (10% vs 9%, respectively; P = .45), as were CAC score (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% CI: 0.58, 1.94; P = .85) and overall plaque prevalence (prevalence ratio, 1.07; 95% CI: 0.86, 1.32; P = .55) after adjustment for cardiovascular risk. Noncalcified plaque prevalence (prevalence ratio, 2.5; 95% CI: 1.07, 5.67; P = .03) and volume (OR, 2.8; 95% CI: 1.05, 7.40; P = .04) were higher in PLWH. Calcified plaque frequency was reduced in PLWH (OR, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.91; P = .02). Treatment with protease inhibitors was associated with higher volume of overall (OR, 1.8; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.85; P = .02) and mixed plaque (OR, 1.6; 95% CI: 1.04, 2.45; P = .03). Conclusion Noncalcified coronary plaque burden at coronary CT angiography was two- to threefold higher in asymptomatic people living with HIV without known cardiovascular disease compared with healthy volunteers without HIV. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lai in this issue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".