Carotid Intima‐Media Thickness, Carotid Distensibility, and Incident Heart Failure in Older Men: The British Regional Heart Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Carotid intima‐media thickness (CIMT) and carotid distensibility are markers of arterial change; however, little is known of the association with incident heart failure (HF). We aimed to assess this. Methods This was a longitudinal analysis of data from the British Regional Heart Study, a prospective cohort study. A total of 1631 men aged 71 to 92 years, without a diagnosis of HF at baseline, were included. Between 2010 and 2012, participants completed a questionnaire, underwent a physical examination, and provided a fasting blood sample. CIMT and carotid artery distension were measured, and carotid distensibility was calculated. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess the multivariate‐adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of incident HF by quartiles of CIMT and distensibility, excluding men with prevalent myocardial infarction. Results The values used in the analysis were adjusted for age, social class, smoking, physical activity, alcohol status, body mass index, use of statins and antihypertensives, prevalent diabetes and stroke, pulse pressure, and presence of atrial arrhythmias. Lower carotid distensibility (bottom quartile) and higher CIMT (top quartile) were associated with increased risk of incident HF (HR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.24–5.24]; P =0.01; and HR, 2.20 [95% CI, 1.14–4.23]; P =0.02, respectively). CIMT but not carotid distensibility was associated with incident myocardial infarction. The association between carotid distensibility and incident HF persisted after adjustment for incident myocardial infarction and CIMT (HR, 2.53 [95% CI, 1.23–5.22]; P =0.01); however, the association between CIMT and incident HF was attenuated after this adjustment (HR, 1.64 [95% CI, 0.84–3.21]; P =0.15). Conclusions Lower carotid distensibility and higher CIMT were associated with an increased risk of incident HF, despite adjustment for incident myocardial infarction.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".