Clustering of cardiovascular risk factors and carotid intima-media thickness: The USE-IMT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The relation of a single risk factor with atherosclerosis is established. Clinically we know of risk factor clustering within individuals. Yet, studies into the magnitude of the relation of risk factor clusters with atherosclerosis are limited. Here, we assessed that relation. Methods Individual participant data from 14 cohorts, involving 59,025 individuals were used in this cross-sectional analysis. We made 15 clusters of four risk factors (current smoking, overweight, elevated blood pressure, elevated total cholesterol). Multilevel age and sex adjusted linear regression models were applied to estimate mean differences in common carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) between clusters using those without any of the four risk factors as reference group. Results Compared to the reference, those with 1, 2, 3 or 4 risk factors had a significantly higher common CIMT: mean difference of 0.026 mm, 0.052 mm, 0.074 mm and 0.114 mm, respectively. These findings were the same in men and in women, and across ethnic groups. Within each risk factor cluster (1, 2, 3 risk factors), groups with elevated blood pressure had the largest CIMT and those with elevated cholesterol the lowest CIMT, a pattern similar for men and women. Conclusion Clusters of risk factors relate to increased common CIMT in a graded manner, similar in men, women and across race-ethnic groups. Some clusters seemed more atherogenic than others. Our findings support the notion that cardiovascular prevention should focus on sets of risk factors rather than individual levels alone, but may prioritize within clusters.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".