Parameters of blood viscosity do not correlate with the extent of coronary and carotid atherosclerosis and with endothelial function in patients undergoing coronary angiography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the role of physical forces on the control of atherogenesis and the modulation of endothelial function is well known, studies investigating the impact of shear stress on the extent of central atherosclerosis and flow-mediated dilation in humans produced controversial results. We investigated the relationship between viscosity, coronary atherosclerosis, carotid intima-media thickness and flow-mediated dilation in patients undergoing coronary angiography. 451 patients (306 males, mean age 66 ± 10) were enrolled. Viscosity, which was calculated using a validated formula, showed a positive association with platelet activation (P = 0.01), leukocyte counts (P = 0.006) and C-reactive protein (P = 0.03), a marker of inflammation; surprisingly, visocsity showed a negative association with FMD (FMD decreased 0.14 ± 0.05% per each cPoise increase in viscosity) but only in patients without coronary artery disease. Viscosity showed no association with the extent of coronary or carotid artery disease. We provide cross-sectional data on the relationship between whole blood viscosity and parameters of vascular structure and function. While viscosity correlated with parameters of vascular inflammation, it showed no relationship with the presence and severity of central atherosclerosis.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it