Left ventricular morphology and function in diabetic and nondiabetic hemodialyzed patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morbidity in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) diabetic patients is worse than in patients without diabetes mellitus (DM). This study aims to compare clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic features between the ESRD patients with and without DM. Fifty-eight ESRD patients on dialysis were prospectively divided into two groups according to the presence of DM. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic features (ejection fraction and wall motion score index) were compared between the two groups. Overall, 20 out of 58 patients (37.8%) with ESRD had DM. There were no significant differences between the patients with DM and those without DM when it comes to age (60.6 ± 10.6 vs. 59.0 ± 10.6 years, P = 0.665), ejection fraction (52.6% ± 12.8% vs. 54.2% ± 12.8%, P = 0.59), and wall motion score index (1.21 ± 0.3 vs.1.15 ± 0.3, P = 0.37). In multivariant analysis of the interventricular septum, posterior wall thickness and left atrium size correlated positively with DM. There was also no statistical difference in myocardial perfusion disturbances on real-time contrast echocardiography between the groups with and without DM (12 (60%) patients vs. 14 patients (36.8%), P = 0.079). Among diabetics 77.8% had significant atherosclerotic changes, while in the group without DM, only 38.1%, P = 0.01. From the laboratory parameters ferritin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher in the group with DM, P = 0.014 and P = 0.026, respectively. Patients with ESRD and DM have significantly bigger left atrial size, thicker left ventricular walls, and higher serum ferritin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels than the patients without DM. The aforementioned features may be possible risk factors for the development of adverse cardiac events in patients on hemodialysis.
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 | 0.001 | 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".