Effect of renal ablation on blood pressure and muscle sympathetic nerve activity in chronic kidney disease patients (LB722)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with renal sympathetic hyperactivity and uncontrolled hypertension. Catheter‐based renal ablation may reduce arterial blood pressure and muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) in patients with drug resistant hypertension. A cohort of 4 dialysis patients are reported who had uncontrolled hypertension despite two agents and clinical normovolemia, and in whom successful MSNA and BP recordings were obtained in both pre and post ablation tests. These patients were tested to determine whether renal ablation would reduce blood pressure and whether changes in blood pressure would be associated with changes in MSNA. This was achieved by comparing burst activity (incidence and frequency) and action potential (AP) composition (APs/burst, APs/min and APs/100 heart beats) pre‐ and one month post‐ablation. Analyses were conducted using software that detected AP content of the multi‐unit recording in human neural signals. Compared to the pre session, these patients had reductions in average ambulatory blood pressure (Systolic 178 ± 18 to 158 ± 25 mmHg p=0.04 and diastolic 95 ± 13 to 82 ± 7 mmHg p=0.046) post‐ablation. Average burst frequency (64 ± 15 to 61 ± 18 p=0.58) and burst incidence (84 ± 12 to 82 ±19 p=0.6) were unaffected by ablation. However, ablation increased average APs/burst (4.5 ± 1.3 to 7 ± 2.3 p= 0.03), APs/min (223 ± 103 to 423 ± 202 p=0.039) and APs/100 heart beats (297 ± 117 to 582 ± 280 p=0.04). These data suggest that the observed decrease in blood pressure was not associated with changes in burst activity (frequency and incidence): However, the observed increases in sympathetic AP content/burst and per minute suggest an affect of ablation on AP recruitment and synchronization. Grant Funding Source : Supported by The Kidney and Health and Disease reserach theme Univeristy of Otago
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".