Effect of Life’s Essential 8 and Exposure to Solid Fuels for Cooking on Cardiovascular Disease Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the association between Life's Essential 8 (LE8) scores and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in less-developed countries. In this study we aimed to assess the relationship between LE8 levels and CVD and evaluate whether LE8 modifies the association between exposure to solid cooking fuels and CVD. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data extracted from the China Multi-Ethnic Cohort. Cardiovascular health was scored using LE8 and categorized as low, moderate, and high. Exposure to solid fuels for cooking was classified as no exposure, intermediate exposure, and heavy exposure. RESULTS: Among 89,772 participants, 4444 (5.0%) had CVD. Higher LE8 scores were associated with lower CVD risk after full covariate adjustment. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for the moderate and high LE8 groups were 0.82 (0.74-0.89) and 0.73 (0.66-0.81), respectively (P for trend < 0.001). Compared with no exposure, heavy exposure to solid fuels was associated with a higher CVD risk (odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.06-1.40]; P = 0.004). A significant interaction was observed between the LE8 score and solid fuel exposure (P for interaction = 0.01). The inverse association between LE8 and CVD was the strongest among those with no exposure to solid fuels (odds ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.71-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS: High LE8 scores are associated with reduced CVD risk, particularly among participants with no exposure to solid fuels for cooking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".