The effects of growth hormone status on circulating levels of vascular growth factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vascular growth factors are important not only in angiogenesis but also for the maintenance of normal endothelial integrity and function. Elevated levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), angiopoietin-2, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), endostatin and angiogenin have been associated with endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis. Both acromegaly and growth hormone deficiency (GHD) are associated with endothelial dysfunction and changes in blood vessel morphology. AIM: To investigate the effect of GH status on the circulating levels of angiogenic factors. DESIGN: We measured the levels of six endothelial growth modulators, four angiogenic growth factors and two inhibitors of angiogenesis in 35 untreated acromegalics, 36 untreated GH-deficient subjects and 101 normal control subjects. Fifteen GH-deficient subjects were also studied before and 1 year after treatment with GH. RESULTS: Mean angiogenin concentrations were increased in acromegaly and decreased in GH-deficient subjects compared to control subjects. Endostatin levels showed a similar pattern although the elevated levels in acromegalic subjects did not achieve statistical significance. Angiogenin and endostatin levels both correlated significantly with IGF-I levels (R = 0.61, P < 0.001 and R = 0.22, P < 0.01, respectively). The relationship between angiogenin and IGF-I levels remained significant even after correction for gender, age, body mass index (BMI) and insulin resistance. There were no significant differences in the levels of HGF, VEGF, VEGF-C or angiopoietin-2 between the three groups. VEGF-D levels were elevated in both acromegalic and GH-deficient male subjects. A similar pattern was apparent in female subjects. After GH treatment, a significant reduction in VEGF-D levels and a significant rise in endostatin levels were observed in GH-deficient subjects. A nonsignificant increase in angiogenin levels was also observed. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that significant perturbations in the levels of vascular growth modulators are present in both acromegaly and GHD. While changes in endostatin and angiogenin levels appear to correlate with IGF-I levels, VEGF-D levels show similar perturbations in both acromegaly and GHD. Further studies are required to determine the relationship of the perturbations to endothelial dysfunction in these conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".