MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399687257 · doi:10.2337/db24-1262-p

1262-P: Effect of Cardiovascular Risk Factor Control on Mortality in Older Adults—Findings from the Costa Rican Longevity and Healthy Aging Study

2024· article· en· W4399687257 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
JAVIER CALVO MARIN, Gabriel Torrealba‐Acosta, Kenneth Ernest-Suárez

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortHazard ratioGerontologyPopulationDemographyCause of deathCohort studyLongevityDiseaseInternal medicineEnvironmental healthConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Costa Rican Longevity and Healthy Aging Study prospective cohort examined older adults' health status in Costa Rica. We investigated the influence of goal attainment on controlling cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs): BMI, A1C, exercise, blood pressure, and smoking, along with their correlation with all-cause mortality. Methodology: Survival data from the initial 2005 visit to 2019 included 1943 participants. Categorization was based on meeting targets for five CVRFs. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were estimated, adjusting for age, sex, C-reactive protein category, and history of previous cardiovascular events. Results: The mean age for the cohort was 73.3 years, with 54.0% females. More than 2 hours of weekly exercise, controlled BMI, and A1C reduced all-cause mortality (aHR 0.77, 0.78, 0.72, respectively, p<0.001) (Figure 1a). Additionally, having 4 (aHR 0.50, p=0.035) or 5 (aHR 0.34, p=0.007) controlled CVRFs reduced overall mortality within the cohort. Conclusions: A controlled A1C and BMI and engaging in exercise correlated with reduced mortality in the Costa Rican elderly population. Additionally, aHRs for all-cause mortality decreased as more CVRFs were controlled, emphasizing the crucial role of managing these multiple factors in this population. Disclosure J. Calvo Marin: Speaker's Bureau; Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca. G. Torrealba-Acosta: None. K. Ernest-Suarez: Advisory Panel; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Consultant; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Advisory Panel; Pfizer Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Pfizer Inc. Advisory Panel; AstraZeneca. Consultant; AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; AstraZeneca. Advisory Panel; Takeda Canada. Speaker's Bureau; Sandoz.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207