Association of Intima‐Media Thickness Measured at the Common Carotid Artery With Incident Carotid Plaque: Individual Participant Data Meta‐Analysis of 20 Prospective Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The association between common carotid artery intima‐media thickness (CCA‐IMT) and incident carotid plaque has not been characterized fully. We therefore aimed to precisely quantify the relationship between CCA‐IMT and carotid plaque development. Methods and Results We undertook an individual participant data meta‐analysis of 20 prospective studies from the Proof‐ATHERO (Prospective Studies of Atherosclerosis) consortium that recorded baseline CCA‐IMT and incident carotid plaque involving 21 494 individuals without a history of cardiovascular disease and without preexisting carotid plaque at baseline. Mean baseline age was 56 years (SD, 9 years), 55% were women, and mean baseline CCA‐IMT was 0.71 mm (SD, 0.17 mm). Over a median follow‐up of 5.9 years (5th–95th percentile, 1.9–19.0 years), 8278 individuals developed first‐ever carotid plaque. We combined study‐specific odds ratios (ORs) for incident carotid plaque using random‐effects meta‐analysis. Baseline CCA‐IMT was approximately log‐linearly associated with the odds of developing carotid plaque. The age‐, sex‐, and trial arm–adjusted OR for carotid plaque per SD higher baseline CCA‐IMT was 1.40 (95% CI, 1.31–1.50; I 2 =63.9%). The corresponding OR that was further adjusted for ethnicity, smoking, diabetes, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, low‐ and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and lipid‐lowering and antihypertensive medication was 1.34 (95% CI, 1.24–1.45; I 2 =59.4%; 14 studies; 16 297 participants; 6381 incident plaques). We observed no significant effect modification across clinically relevant subgroups. Sensitivity analysis restricted to studies defining plaque as focal thickening yielded a comparable OR (1.38 [95% CI, 1.29–1.47]; I 2 =57.1%; 14 studies; 17 352 participants; 6991 incident plaques). Conclusions Our large‐scale individual participant data meta‐analysis demonstrated that CCA‐IMT is associated with the long‐term risk of developing first‐ever carotid plaque, independent of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.
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 | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".