The role of folic acid on the hyperhomocysteinemia in the Buerger's disease (Thromboangiitis Obliterans).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mechanism underlying Buerger's disease (BD) is still unknown. Recently, thrombophilic conditions predisposing to a hypercoagulable state have been hypothesized as triggers for BD. The aim of the study is to evaluate the prevalence of the hyperhomocysteinemia and level of the anticardiolipin antibodies, and the role of folic acid on the hyperhomocysteinemia and on the rate of the amputations in the patients with BD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an experimental placebo-controlled double-blinded study, between 2004 and 2010, thirty patients with BD were randomly assigned into two groups (14 patients in a drug group and 16 patients in the placebo group). Drug or placebo was administered, and they were followed in 2 and 6 months for homocysteine, Anticardiolipin antibodies and the risk of amputations. RESULTS: At the beginning of the study homocysteine level was higher than normal in 19 patients (63%). There was a significant decrease in homocysteine level during 6 months in folic acid group (P < 0.001), but there was no change in the placebo group. None of our patients had elevated Anticardiolipin antibodies, and there was no change in the level of Anticardiolipin antibody during study. High level of homocysteine did not associate with more amputations during 6 months of study (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study shows the hyperhomocysteinemia in BD, and the benefit of folic acid treatment in homocysteine lowering, but folic acid doesn't inhibit the risk of major and minor amputation during 6 months of follow-up. Longer follow-up may reveal the role of folic acid in these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".