Evaluating The Robustness of Self-Supervised Representations to Background/Foreground Removal

Despite impressive empirical advances of SSL in solving various tasks, the problem of understanding and characterizing SSL representations learned from input data remains relatively under-explored. We provide a comparative analysis of how the representations produced by SSL models differ when masking parts of the input. Specifically, we considered state-of-the-art SSL pretrained models, such as DINOv2, MAE, and SwaV, and analyzed changes at the representation levels across 4 Image Classification datasets. First, we generate variations of the datasets by applying foreground and background segmentation. Then, we conduct statistical analysis using Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) and Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA) to evaluate the robustness of the representations learned in SSL models. Empirically, we show that not all models lead to representations that separate foreground, background, and complete images. Furthermore, we test different masking strategies by occluding the center regions of the images to address cases where foreground and background are difficult. For example, the DTD dataset that focuses on texture rather specific objects

Longitudinal association of C-reactive protein and Haemoglobin A1c over 13 years: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer - Norfolk study

Abstract Background Type-2 diabetes is associated with systemic inflammation and higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. However, the longitudinal association of CRP and haemoglobin-A1c (HbA1c) has not been described in large prospective studies. Understanding such associations may shed light on the role of inflammation in development of type-2 diabetes and its complications such as cardiovascular diseases. Methods EPIC-Norfolk is a cohort study of men and women aged 40–79 years at time of recruitment (1993–1997). Serum CRP (mg/l) was measured using a high-sensitivity assay at baseline and 13-years follow-up. HbA1c (%) was measured at baseline, 4, and 13 years. Participants were excluded if they were diagnosed with diabetes or were taking diabetes medication. Data on at least one measurement of CRP and HbA1c was available for 14228 participants (55 % of the cohort). Results In the cross-sectional analysis of baseline data, a 1-SD higher loge-CRP (about three-fold higher CRP) was associated with 0.06 (95 % CI 0.04, 0.08) higher HbA1c (%) adjusted for potential confounders. In longitudinal analysis using multivariable linear mixed models, change in CRP over 13 years was to a similar extent positively associated with increase in HbA1c, such that 1-SD higher longitudinal change in loge-CRP was associated with 0.04 (95 % CI 0.02, 0.05) increase in HbA1c. Conclusion In this study we found longitudinal observational evidence suggesting that increase in systemic inflammation is associated with an increase in HbA1c and thus systemic inflammation may have a role in development of type-2 diabetes and its complications

Daytime napping, sleep duration and serum C reactive protein: a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether daytime napping and sleep duration are linked to serum C reactive protein (CRP), a pro-inflammatory marker, in an older aged British population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Norfolk study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5018 men and women aged 48-92 years reported their sleep habits and had serum CRP levels measured. OUTCOME AND MEASURES: CRP was measured (mg/L) during 2006-2011 in fresh blood samples using high-sensitivity methods. Participants reported napping habits during 2002-2004, and reported sleep quantity during 2006-2007. Multivariable linear regression models were used to examine the association between napping and log-transformed CRP, and geometric mean CRP levels were calculated. RESULTS: After adjustment for age and sex, those who reported napping had 10% higher CRP levels compared with those not napping. The association was attenuated but remained borderline significant (β=0.05 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10)) after further adjustment for social class, education, marital status, body mass index, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, self-reported health, pre-existing diseases, systolic blood pressure, hypnotic drug use, depression and in women-only hormone replacement therapy use. The geometric means (95% CI) of CRP levels were 2.38 (2.29 to 2.47) mg/L and 2.26 (2.21 to 2.32) mg/L for those who reported napping and no napping, respectively. A U-shaped association was observed between time spent in bed at night and CRP levels, and nighttime sleep duration was not associated with serum CRP levels. The association between napping and CRP was stronger for older participants, and among extremes of time spent in bed at night. CONCLUSIONS: Daytime napping was associated with increased CRP levels in an older aged British population. Further studies are needed to determine whether daytime napping is a cause for systemic inflammation, or if it is a symptom or consequence of underlying health problems.The design and conduct of the EPIC-Norfolk study and collection and management of the data was supported by programme grants from the Medical Research Council UK (G9502233, G0300128) and Cancer Research UK (C865/A2883). YL is supported by the Cambridge Overseas Trust. FPC leads the Sleep Health & Society Programme at the University of Warwick supported, in part, by the University of Warwick RDF and IAS. It has received funding by the NHS National Workforce Projects and the Economic & Social Research Council (ES/K002910/1).This is the final version. It was first published by BMJ Group at http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/11/e006071.full

Dementia risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: Comparing metformin with no pharmacological treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Metformin has been suggested as a therapeutic agent for dementia, but the relevant evidence has been partial and inconsistent. METHODS: We established a national cohort of 210,237 type 2 diabetes patients in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Risks of incident dementia were compared between metformin initiators and those who were not prescribed any anti-diabetes medication during follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with metformin initiators (n = 114,628), patients who received no anti-diabetes medication (n = 95,609) had lower HbA1c and better cardiovascular health at baseline. Both Cox regression and propensity score weighting analysis showed metformin initiators had lower risk of dementia compared to those non-users (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.88 [95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.92] and 0.90 [0.84-0.96]). Patients on long-term metformin treatment had an even lower risk of dementia. DISCUSSION: Metformin may act beyond its glycemic effect and reduce dementia risk to an even lower level than that of patients with milder diabetes and better health profiles. HIGHLIGHTS: Metformin initiators had a significantly lower risk of dementia compared with patients not receiving anti-diabetes medication. Compared with metformin initiators, diabetes patients not receiving pharmacological treatment had better glycemic profiles at baseline and during follow-up. Patients on long-term metformin treatment had an even lower risk of subsequent dementia incidence. Metformin may act beyond its effect on hyperglycemia and has the potential of being repurposed for dementia prevention

Midlife contributors to socioeconomic differences in frailty during later life: a prospective cohort study

Background Health inequalities persist into old age. We aimed to investigate risk factors for socioeconomic differences in frailty that could potentially be modified through policy measures. Methods In this multi-wave longitudinal cohort study (Whitehall II study), we assessed participants' socioeconomic status, behavioural and biomedical risk factors, and disease status at age 45-55 years, and frailty (defined according to the Fried phenotype) at baseline and at one or more of three clinic visits about 18 years later (mean age 69 years [SD 5.9]). We used logistic mixed models to examine the associations between socioeconomic status and risk factors at age 50 years and subsequent prevalence of frailty (adjusted for sex, ethnic origin, and age), with sensitivity analyses and multiple imputation for missing data. Findings Between Sept 9, 2007, and Dec 8, 2016, 6233 middle-aged adults were measured for frailty. Frailty was present in 562 (3%) of 16 164 person-observations, and varied by socioeconomic status: 145 (2%) person-observations had high socioeconomic status, 241 (4%) had intermediate status, and 176 (7%) had low socioeconomic status, adjusting for sex and age. Risk factors for frailty included cardiovascular disease, depression, smoking, high or abstinent alcohol consumption, low fruit and vegetable consumption, physical inactivity, poor lung function, hypertension, and overweight or obesity. Cardiometabolic markers for future frailty were high ratio of total to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and raised interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein concentrations. The five most important factors contributing to the frailty gradient, assessed by percent attenuation of the association between socioeconomic status and frailty, were physical activity (13%), interleukin-6 (13%), body-mass index category (11%), C-reactive protein (11%), and poor lung function (10%). Overall, socioeconomic differences in frailty were reduced by 40% in the maximally-adjusted model compared with the minimally-adjusted model. Interpretation Behavioural and cardiometabolic risk factors in midlife account for more than a third of socioeconomic differences in frailty. Our findings suggest that interventions targeting physical activity, obesity, smoking, and low-grade inflammation in middle age might reduce socioeconomic differences in later-life frailty. Copyright (c) 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

C-Reactive Protein Identifies Low-Risk Metabolically Healthy Obese Persons: The European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk Prospective Population Study.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting data exist about the cardiovascular risk of metabolically healthy obese persons. The prognostic value of C-reactive protein (CRP) in this intriguing group is unknown. We assessed the association between CRP levels and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in metabolically healthy persons with abdominal obesity. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk prospective cohort, CRP levels and information on metabolic syndrome criteria were available for 7279 participants, of whom 825 (11%) developed CHD during a follow-up period of 10.9±1.8 years. There was a trend toward a higher multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio for CHD in metabolically healthy obese participants with CRP levels >2 mg/L compared with <2 mg/L (hazard ratio 1.59, 95% CI 0.97-2.62, P=0.066). Metabolically unhealthy obese participants had significantly higher CHD risk compared with metabolically healthy obese participants with CRP levels <2 mg/L (hazard ratio 1.88, 95% CI 1.20-2.94, P=0.006). Most important, we found that the risk of CHD among metabolically healthy obese persons with CRP levels <2 mg/L was comparable to that of metabolically healthy nonobese persons (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39, P=0.674). CONCLUSIONS: Among metabolically healthy obese persons, low CRP levels were associated with a CHD risk comparable to that of metabolically healthy nonobese persons. CRP appears to be an easy and widely available method for identifying a low-risk subpopulation among metabolically healthy obese persons.EPIC‐Norfolk is supported by program grants from the Medical Research Council UK and Cancer Research UK. The CRP measurements in the full cohort were supported by a grant from the Medical Research Council to the Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom (MRC G0701863). The funding sources had no role in the study design, the conduct of the analysis, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication

Impact of hypertension prevalence trend on mortality and burdens of dementia and disability in England and Wales to 2060: a simulation modelling study

BACKGROUND: Previous estimates of the impact of public health interventions targeting hypertension usually focus on one health outcome. This study aims to consider the effects of change in future hypertension prevalence on mortality, dementia, and disability simultaneously. METHODS: We modelled three plausible scenarios based on observed trends of hypertension prevalence from 2003 to 2017 in England: observed trends continue (baseline scenario); 2017 prevalence remains unchanged; and 2017 prevalence decreases by 50% by 2060. We used a probabilistic Markov model to integrate calendar trends in incidence of cardiovascular disease, dementia, disability, and mortality to forecast their future occurrence in the population of England and Wales. Assuming the hypertension prevalence trend modifies health transition probabilities, we compared mortality outcomes and the burden of dementia and disability to 2060 for the scenarios. FINDINGS: If the decline in hypertension prevalence stops, there would be a slight increase in the number of additional deaths to 2060 (22·9 [95% uncertainty interval 19·0-26·6] more deaths per 100 000 population), although the burdens of disability and dementia in absolute terms would change little. Alternatively, if the downward hypertension prevalence trend accelerates (with prevalence falling by 50% between 2017 and 2060), there would be a modest additional reduction in deaths (57·0 [50·4-63·5] fewer deaths per 100 000 population), a small increase in dementia burden (9·0 [5·1-13·2] more cases per 100 000 population), no significant effect on disability burden, and an 8% gain in healthy life expectancy at age 65 years from 2020 to 2060 (5·3 years vs 4·9 years) compared with the baseline scenario. INTERPRETATION: The major future impact of alternative hypertension prevention strategies appears to be on future life expectancy. The salutary effect of lower population blood pressure distribution on incidence of dementia and disability might not offset expansion of the susceptible population due to reduced mortality. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation and UK Economic and Social Research Council

Potential impact of diabetes prevention on mortality and future burden of dementia and disability : a modelling study

Aims/hypothesis Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of dementia. We estimated the potential impact of trends in diabetes prevalence upon mortality and the future burden of dementia and disability in England and Wales. Methods We used a probabilistic multi-state, open cohort Markov model to integrate observed trends in diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia to forecast the occurrence of disability and dementia up to the year 2060. Model input data were taken from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, Office for National Statistics vital data and published effect estimates for health-state transition probabilities. The baseline scenario corresponded to recent trends in obesity: a 26% increase in the number of people with diabetes by 2060. This scenario was evaluated against three alternative projected trends in diabetes: increases of 49%, 20% and 7%. Results Our results suggest that changes in the trend in diabetes prevalence will lead to changes in mortality and incidence of dementia and disability, which will become visible after 10-15 years. If the relative prevalence of diabetes increases 49% by 2060, expected additional deaths would be approximately 255,000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 236,000-272,200), with 85,900 (71,500-101,600) cumulative additional cases of dementia and 104,900 (85,900-125,400) additional cases of disability. With a smaller relative increase in diabetes prevalence (7% increase by 2060), we estimated 222,200 (205,700-237,300) fewer deaths, and 77,000 (64,300-90,800) and 93,300 (76,700-111,400) fewer additional cases of dementia and disability, respectively, than the baseline case of a 26% increase in diabetes. Conclusions/interpretation Reducing the burden of diabetes could result in substantial reductions in the incidence of dementia and disability over the medium to long term.Peer reviewe

5-year versus risk-category-specific screening intervals for cardiovascular disease prevention : a cohort study

Background Clinical guidelines suggest preventive interventions such as statin therapy for individuals with a high estimated 10-year risk of major cardiovascular events. For those with a low or intermediate estimated risk, risk-factor screenings are recommended at 5-year intervals; this interval is based on expert opinion rather than on direct research evidence. Using longitudinal data on the progression of cardiovascular disease risk over time, we compared different screening intervals in terms of timely detection of high-risk individuals, cardiovascular events prevented, and health-care costs. Methods We used data from participants in the British Whitehall II study (aged 40-64 years at baseline) who had repeated biomedical screenings at 5-year intervals and linked these data to electronic health records between baseline (Aug 7, 1991, to May 10, 1993) and June 30, 2015. We estimated participants' 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and fatal or non-fatal stroke) using the revised Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) calculator. We used multistate Markov modelling to estimate optimum screening intervals on the basis of progression rates from low-risk and intermediate-risk categories to the high-risk category (ie, >= 7.5% 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event). Our assessment criteria included person-years spent in a high-risk category before detection, the number of major cardiovascular events prevented and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and screening costs. Findings Of 6964 participants (mean age 50.0 years [ SD 6.0] at baseline) with 152 700 person-years of follow-up (mean follow-up 22.0 years [SD 5.0]), 1686 participants progressed to the high-risk category and 617 had a major cardiovascular event. With the 5-year screening intervals, participants spent 7866 (95% CI 7130-8658) person-years unrecognised in the high-risk group. For individuals in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high risk categories, 21 alternative risk category-based screening intervals outperformed the 5-yearly screening protocol. Screening intervals at 7 years, 4 years, and 1 year for those in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high-risk category would reduce the number of person-years spent unrecognised in the high-risk group by 62% (95% CI 57-66; 4894 person-years), reduce the number of major cardiovascular events by 8% (7-9; 49 events), and raise 44 QALYs (40-49) for the study population. Interpretation In terms of timely preventive interventions, the 5-year screening intervals were unnecessarily frequent for low-risk individuals and insufficiently frequent for intermediate-risk individuals. Screening intervals based on risk-category-specific progression rates would perform better in terms of preventing major cardiovascular disease events and improving cost-effectiveness. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

5-year versus risk-category-specific screening intervals for cardiovascular disease prevention : a cohort study

Background Clinical guidelines suggest preventive interventions such as statin therapy for individuals with a high estimated 10-year risk of major cardiovascular events. For those with a low or intermediate estimated risk, risk-factor screenings are recommended at 5-year intervals; this interval is based on expert opinion rather than on direct research evidence. Using longitudinal data on the progression of cardiovascular disease risk over time, we compared different screening intervals in terms of timely detection of high-risk individuals, cardiovascular events prevented, and health-care costs. Methods We used data from participants in the British Whitehall II study (aged 40-64 years at baseline) who had repeated biomedical screenings at 5-year intervals and linked these data to electronic health records between baseline (Aug 7, 1991, to May 10, 1993) and June 30, 2015. We estimated participants' 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and fatal or non-fatal stroke) using the revised Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) calculator. We used multistate Markov modelling to estimate optimum screening intervals on the basis of progression rates from low-risk and intermediate-risk categories to the high-risk category (ie, >= 7.5% 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event). Our assessment criteria included person-years spent in a high-risk category before detection, the number of major cardiovascular events prevented and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and screening costs. Findings Of 6964 participants (mean age 50.0 years [ SD 6.0] at baseline) with 152 700 person-years of follow-up (mean follow-up 22.0 years [SD 5.0]), 1686 participants progressed to the high-risk category and 617 had a major cardiovascular event. With the 5-year screening intervals, participants spent 7866 (95% CI 7130-8658) person-years unrecognised in the high-risk group. For individuals in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high risk categories, 21 alternative risk category-based screening intervals outperformed the 5-yearly screening protocol. Screening intervals at 7 years, 4 years, and 1 year for those in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high-risk category would reduce the number of person-years spent unrecognised in the high-risk group by 62% (95% CI 57-66; 4894 person-years), reduce the number of major cardiovascular events by 8% (7-9; 49 events), and raise 44 QALYs (40-49) for the study population. Interpretation In terms of timely preventive interventions, the 5-year screening intervals were unnecessarily frequent for low-risk individuals and insufficiently frequent for intermediate-risk individuals. Screening intervals based on risk-category-specific progression rates would perform better in terms of preventing major cardiovascular disease events and improving cost-effectiveness. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe