Exercise induced coronary inflammation in masters athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Chronic endurance exercise has been linked to increased prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in male master athletes. Data are limited regarding the presence of exercise-induced coronary inflammation and its association with atherosclerosis in master endurance athletes. Human coronary inflammation can be detected non-invasively by imaging pericoronary adipose tissue (PCAT). We tested the hypothesis that chronic endurance exercise leads to increased prevalence of atherosclerosis via coronary inflammation. Methods Computed tomography coronary angiogram CTCA scans from 2 cohorts of master athletes and age-matched controls, without known risk factors for CAD, were analysed post-hoc and the PCAT attenuation index was calculated around the proximal right coronary artery (FAIRCA). The athletes and the healthy controls also underwent an electrocardiogram, an echocardiogram, a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), a 24-hour Holter tape and a Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) scan. Results Scans from 243 masters endurance athletes (62% females) and 58 age and Framingham CAD risk score matched healthy controls were analysed. FAIRCA was significantly higher (less negative) in male masters athletes vs female masters athletes [−61.3 Hounsfield Units (HU) vs −62.8 HU, p=0.01], in male athletes vs male controls (−61.3 HU vs −68.6 HU, p<0.001) and in female athletes vs female controls (−62,8 HU vs −67.5 HU, p=0.005). In female masters athletes, peak oxygen consumption during CPET (peak VO2) statistically significantly predicted the FAIRCA, F(1,146) = 22.62, p<0.0001. There was no correlation between the FAIRCA and presence of atherosclerosis in male masters athletes. Conclusions Masters athletes show increased markers of coronary inflammation. This effect appears to be greater in male masters athletes and is associated with a higher peak VO2 in female masters athletes. However, we did not identify a link between coronary inflammation and coronary atherosclerosis in this cohort. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): Cardiac Risk in the Young, UK
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".