MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pulmonary hypertension in end-stage renal disease and post renal transplantation patients.

2014· article· en· W1762997482 on OpenAlexaff
Esam H. Alhamad, Mohammed Alghonaim, Hussam AlFaleh, Joseph P Cal, Nazmi Said

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary hypertensionTransplantationInternal medicineDialysisHemodialysisPeritoneal dialysisEnd stage renal diseaseCardiologyPulmonary arteryPulmonary function testingRenal functionProspective cohort studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207