Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 244

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Useful in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment?: The Rotterdam Study

Open access
del Sol, Antonio Iglesias, Moons, Karel G.M., Hollander, Monika, Hofman, Albert, Koudstaal, Peter J., Grobbee, Diederick E., Breteler, Monique M.B., Witteman, Jacqueline C.M., Bots, Michiel L.·2001·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose —We determined the contribution of common carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in the prediction of future coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease when added to established risk factors. Methods —We used data from a nested case-control study comprising 374 subjects with either an incident stroke or a myocardial infarction and 1496 controls. All subjects were aged 55 years and older and participated in the Rotterdam Study. Mean follow-up was 4.2 years (range, 0.1 to 6.5 years). We evaluated which correlates of coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease contribute to the prediction of either a new incident myocardial infarction or a stroke. Logistic regression modeling and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC area) were used to quantify the predictive value of the established risk factors and the added value of IMT. Results —The ROC area of a model with age and sex only was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.69). Independent risk factors were previous myocardial infarction and stroke, diabetes mellitus, smoking, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and total and HDL cholesterol levels. These risk factors increased the ROC area from 0.65 to 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.75). This model correctly predicted 17% of all subjects with coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease. When common carotid IMT was added to the previous model, the ROC area increased to 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.78). When only the IMT measurement was used, the ROC area was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.74), and 14% of all subjects were correctly predicted. There was no difference in ROC area when different measurement sites were used. Conclusions —Adding IMT to a risk function for coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease does not result in a substantial increase in the predictive value when used as a screening tool.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.32.7.1532

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 244

Metadata

Authors
del Sol, A. I., Moons, K. G. M., Hollander, M., Hofman, A., Koudstaal, P. J., Grobbee, D. E., Breteler, M. M. B., Witteman, J. C. M., & Bots, M. L.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2001-07
Volume
32
Issue
7
Pages
1532-1538
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2128309107
Cited by
244
References
3
FWCI
7.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Useful in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment?: The Rotterdam Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.32.7.1532
The paper
del Sol, A. I., Moons, K. G. M., Hollander, M., Hofman, A., Koudstaal, P. J., Grobbee, D. E., Breteler, M. M. B., Witteman, J. C. M., & Bots, M. L. (2001). Is Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Useful in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment?: The Rotterdam Study. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.32.7.1532

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.