Carotid plaque score is associated with 10-year major adverse cardiovascular events in low–intermediate risk patients referred to a general cardiology community clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Atherosclerotic carotid plaque assessments have not been integrated into routine clinical practice due to the time-consuming nature of both imaging and measurements. Plaque score, Rotterdam method, is simple, quick, and only requires 4-6 B-mode ultrasound images. The aim was to assess the benefit of plaque score in a community cardiology clinic to identify patients at risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients ≥ 40 years presenting for risk assessment were given a carotid ultrasound. Exclusions included a history of vascular disease or MACE and being >75 years. Kaplan-Meier curves and hazard ratios were performed. The left and right common carotid artery (CCA), bulb, and internal carotid artery were given 1 point per segment if plaque was present (plaque scores 0-6). Administrative data holdings at ICES were used for 10-year event follow-up. Of 8472 patients, 60% were females (n = 5121). Plaque was more prevalent in males (64% vs. 53.9%; P < 0.0001). The 10-year MACE cumulative incidence estimate was 6.37% with 276 events (males 6.9% vs. females 6.0%; P = 0.004). Having both maximal CCA intima media thickness < 1.00 mm and plaque score = 0 was associated with less events. A plaque score < 2 was associated with a low 10-year event rate (4.1%) compared with 2-4 (8.7%) and 5-6 (20%). CONCLUSION: A plaque score ≥ 2 can re-stratify low-intermediate risk patients to a higher risk for events. Plaque score may be used as a quick assessment in a cardiology office to guide treatment management of patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".