Weight Change and Risk of Atherosclerosis Measured by Carotid Intima–Media Thickness (cIMT) from a Prospective Cohort—Analysis of the First-Wave Follow-Up Data of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore impact of weight change (WC) on risk of atherosclerosis measured by cIMT, 20,700 participants from the CLSA follow-up were included in analysis. WC was defined as the difference of weight measured at follow-up and baseline, then quartered into four groups (Q1-Q4). cIMT > 1.0 mm was defined as high risk for atherosclerosis. Adjusted odds ratio (OR (95% CI)) from logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between WC and risk of atherosclerosis. At follow-up, participants had gained 0.118 kg weight, on average, and 16.4% of them were at high risk for atherosclerosis. The mean levels of cIMT were comparable between participants from Q1 to Q4. Compared to Q2 (reference), the ORs (95% CI) were 1.00 (0.86, 1.15), 1.19 (1.03,1.38), and 1.25 (1.08,1.45) for Q1, Q3, and Q4, respectively. A similar pattern was observed when analyses were conducted for ages < 65 vs. 65+ separately, but it was weaker for those aged 65+. Results from the jointed distribution analyses indicated that moderate weight loss might increase risk for atherosclerosis among participants with obese BMI at baseline, but not for those with cardiovascular event status at baseline. Weight gain, however, would increase risk for atherosclerosis regardless of cardiovascular event status, or overweight/obese BMI at baseline.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".