Sex-specific frailty and chronological age normative carotid artery intima-media thickness values using the Canadian longitudinal study of aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Carotid intima-media-thickness (cIMT) is predictive of future cardiovascular events, increases with chronological age, and greater in males. The accumulation of health deficits (or frailty) is a marker of biological age. However, normative cIMT values are lacking and would be an important comparative tool for healthcare providers and researchers. This study aimed to establish sex-specific normative cIMT values across chronological age and frailty levels (i.e. biological age). Methods Frailty and right common cIMT data were extracted from the Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging baseline comprehensive cohort of middle-aged and older adults ( n = 10,209; 5000 females). cIMT was assessed via high-resolution ultrasound. Frailty was determined using a 52-item frailty index. Ordinary least squares and quantile regressions were conducted between age (years or frailty index) with cIMT (average or maximum), separately for males and females. Results In both sexes, average and maximum cIMT increased with higher chronological age and frailty. Both cIMT metrics increased non-linearly (quadratic-cIMT term) with advancing age (β-coefficients for quadratic and linear terms: all, p < 0.001), except for the linear relationship between average and maximum cIMT with chronological age among males ( p < 0.001). Sex-specific normative average and maximum cIMT values were established (1 st –99 th percentiles, 5% increments), separately for chronological and biological ages. Conclusions This is the largest sample of adults to establish normative cIMT outcomes that includes older adults. The chronological age and frailty-related normative cIMT outcomes will serve as a useful resource for healthcare professionals and researchers to establish “normal” age- and sex-specific cIMT values.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".