Masters athlete screening study (MASS): incidence of cardiovascular disease and major adverse cardiac events and efficacy of screening over five years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of cardiovascular screening in Masters athletes (MAs) (≥35 y), and whether screening decreases their risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) is unknown. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of yearly cardiovascular screening, and the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and MACE over five years. METHODS AND RESULTS: MAs (≥35 y) without previous history of CVD underwent yearly cardiovascular screening. Participants with an abnormal screen underwent further evaluations. In the initial year, 798 MAs (62.7% male, 55 ± 10 y) were screened; 11.4% (n = 91) were diagnosed with CVD. Coronary artery disease (CAD) was the most common diagnosis (n = 64; 53%). During follow-up, there were an additional 89 CVD diagnoses with an incidence rate of 3.58/100, 4.14/100, 3.74/100, 1.19/100, for years one to four, respectively. The most common diagnoses during follow-up were arrhythmias (n = 33; 37%). Increasing age (OR = 1.047, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.003-1.094; P = 0.0379), Framingham Risk Score (FRS) (OR = 1.092, 95% CI: 1.031-1.158; P = 0.003), and LDL cholesterol (OR = 1.709, 95% CI: 1.223-2.401; P = 0.002) were predictive of CAD, whereas moderate intensity activity (min/wk) (OR = 0.997, 95% CI: 0.996-0.999; P = 0.002) was protective. Ten MACE (2.8/1000 athlete-years) occurred. All of these MAs were male, and 90% had ≥10% FRS. All underwent further evaluations with only two identified to have obstructive CAD. CONCLUSION: MACE occurred despite yearly screening. All MAs who had an event had an abnormal screen; however, cardiac functional tests failed to detect underlying CAD in most cases. It may be appropriate to offer computed coronary tomography angiography in MAs with ≥10% FRS to overcome the limitations of functional testing, and to assist with lifestyle and treatment modifications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".