Pulmonary hypertension in end-stage renal disease and post renal transplantation patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information regarding lung function parameters and functional capacity in renal failure and post renal transplantation patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) is limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical characteristics of patients with PH who were receiving hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) or who had undergone renal transplantation. METHODS: A prospective study was performed on 116 patients (HD =55, PD =17, and post renal transplantation =44) who underwent Doppler echocardiography. PH was defined as systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) ≥40 mmHg. Demographic information, clinical characteristics, pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and the six-minute walk test (6MWT) were collected and compared between the patients with and without PH. RESULTS: Twelve (21.8%) patients receiving HD, four (23.5%) patients receiving PD, and eight (18.2%) post renal transplantation patients had PH. In the HD group, the physiological indicators (including pulmonary function test parameters, the final Borg score, and walking distance during the 6MWT) were all significantly lower in the patients with PH compared with those without PH (all P<0.0001). However, in the PD and post renal transplantation groups, no significant differences were noted in the demographic characteristics or in the physiological parameters when the PH patients were compared with those without PH (all P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among HD patients, marked aberrations in PFT results or walking distance may identify a subset of patients suffering from PH.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".