The association of coronary artery calcium progression and cognitive function in midlife ‐ The Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults (CARDIA) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Little is known about the impact of coronary artery calcium (CAC) and its progression on cognitive function in midlife, a time of importance for cognitive aging. Methods In CARDIA, CAC was measured using computed tomography at years 15 (baseline), 20 and 25. CAC progression was defined as: (1) CAC>0 at follow‐up among participants with baseline CAC = 0; (2) an annualized change of ≥10 units at follow‐up among those with 0 0) and CAC progression. Results Among 2,341 participants (mean age 40.3 ± 3.6 years, 56% female, 43% Black at baseline), higher CAC score and CAC progression were associated with significantly lower cognitive performance in all cognitive tests. After adjustment for demographics, the association remained for CAC progression, compared to no progression, for most test scores: DSST (‐2.70 95% CI: ‐4.05 to ‐1.36, p < 0.001), MoCA (‐0.44 95% CI: ‐0.74 to ‐0.13, p = 0.005) and verbal fluency (‐0.85 95% CI: ‐1.57 to ‐0.12, p = 0.02). Similar associations were observed for higher CAC score (>0 vs 0): DSST (‐3.11 95% CI: ‐5.16 to ‐1.06, p = 0.003), MoCA (‐0.81 95% CI: ‐1.28 to ‐0.34, p = 0.001) and RAVLT (‐0.67 95% CI: ‐1.12 to ‐0.23, p = 0.003). Additional adjustment for physical activity, depressive symptoms, and APOE, and mutually for baseline CAC score and progression did not materially change the association. Conclusions CAC score and progression were associated with lower cognitive function in midlife. CAC progression may be an independent risk factor for early cognitive aging, independent of baseline CAC score and other 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".