Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors and carotid intima-media thickness in children and youth with obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The high prevalence of obesity in Canadian children and youth predicts an increased burden of cardiometabolic disease across the life course. Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) is a surrogate marker of ATH and detects subclinical arterial wall abnormalities. However, relationships between modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) and cIMT progression in children and youth with obesity, remain understudied. PURPOSE: The study objective was to characterize cIMT progression and to identify CVRFs associated with baseline cIMT and change in cIMT, over time. HYPOTHESIS: It is hypothesized that measures of adiposity, BP, glycemia and lipid profile will be related to cIMT progression in children and youth with obesity and that cIMT progression will vary across carotid segments. METHODS: This longitudinal study included 125 children and youth with obesity (5-17y), enrolled in a Canadian Pediatric Weight Management Registry sub-study. B-mode ultrasonography was utilized to assess cIMT at baseline and 1-year follow-up. Measures of adiposity, BP, glycemia and lipid profile were acquired from clinical chart review. Potential relationships between CVRFs and cIMT progression were evaluated using univariable and multivariable regression. RESULTS: Carotid IMT (mm) changed significantly (p<0.001) at the carotid bulb, common carotid artery (CCA) and internal carotid artery (ICA), from baseline to 1-year, and cIMT progressed more rapidly than reported in children with diabetes/FH. Furthermore, cIMT progression was greatest at the carotid bulb, followed by the CCA and ICA. Baseline cIMT was positively related to SBP, TC/HDL-C, FPG and negatively related to HDL-C (corrected for age, sex, height). Change in cIMT at 1-year was positively related to BMI, non-HDL-C, TC/HDL-C and negatively related to HDL-C (corrected for age, sex, height, baseline cIMT). CONCLUSIONS: In children and youth with obesity, IMT progression was greater at the carotid bulb than at the CCA and ICA. Measures of adiposity, BP, glycemia and lipid profile were related to baseline cIMT and cIMT progression.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".