There is little information about how much traditional cardiovascular risk factors explain common carotid artery intima-media thickness (CCA-IMT) variance. We aimed to study to which extent CCA-IMT values are determined by traditional risk factors and which commonly used measurements of blood pressure, glucose metabolism, lipid profile, and adiposity contribute the most to this determination in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil) baseline cohort.
We analyzed 9792 individuals with complete data and CCA-IMT measurements. We built multiple linear regression models using mean left and right CCA-IMT as the dependent variable. All models were stratified by sex. We also analyzed individuals stratified by 10-year coronary heart disease risk and, in separate, those with no traditional risk factors. Main models' R(2) varied between 0.141 and 0.373. The major part of the explained variance in CCA-IMT was because of age and race. Indicators of blood pressure, lipid profile, and adiposity that most frequently composed the best models were pulse pressure, low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein ratio, and neck circumference. The association between neck circumference and CCA-IMT persisted significant even after further adjustment for vessel sizes and body mass index. Indicators of glucose metabolism had smaller contribution.
We found that >60% of CCA-IMT were not explained by demographic and traditional cardiovascular risk factors, which highlights the need to study novel risk factors. Pulse pressure, low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein ratio, and neck circumference were the most consistent contributors.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
6
7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
4
5%
Nursing and Health Professions
3
3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
3
3%
Other
7
8%
Unknown
32
37%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2015.
All research outputs
#24,121,174
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (Highwire)
#5,748
of 7,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,950
of 301,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (Highwire)
#39
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
