Assessment of atherosclerosis: should coronary calcium score and intima-media thickness be replaced by ultrasound measurement of carotid plaque burden and vessel wall volume?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe the uses of vessel wall volume (VWV) and measurement of carotid plaque burden, as total plaque area (TPA) and total plaque volume (TPV), and to contrast them with measurement of carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and coronary calcium (CAC). RECENT FINDINGS: Measurement of carotid plaque burden (CPB) is useful for risk stratification, research into the genetics and biology of atherosclerosis, for measuring effects of new therapies for atherosclerosis, and for treatment of high-risk patients with severe atherosclerosis. It is as predictive of risk as CAC, with important advantages. IMT is only a weak predictor of risk and changes so little over time that it is not useful for assessing effects of therapy. SUMMARY: Measurement of CPB and VWV are far superior to measurement of carotid IMT in many ways, and should replace it. Vessel wall volume can be measured in persons with no plaque as an alternative to IMT. There are important advantages of CPB over coronary calcium; CPB should be more widely used in vascular prevention.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".