Lipoprotein lipase in aortic valve stenosis is associated with lipid retention and remodelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) is a chronic disorder characterized by a fibrocalcific remodelling. It is suspected that lipid retention within the aortic valve may be one important mechanism participating to aortic valve remodelling. Lipoprotein lipase (LPL) is implicated in lipid metabolism and may play a role in lipid retention within the aortic valve. METHODS: In 57 patients, CAVD were analysed for the expression of LPL by q-PCR and immunohistochemistry. Expression of oxidized-LDL (ox-LDL) and decorin was also documented. In addition, a complete blood profile, including the size of LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particles, were performed to find associations between the blood lipid profile and expression of ox-LDL and LPL within CAVD. RESULTS: Immunohistochemistry studies revealed that LPL was expressed in stenotic aortic valves as a diffuse staining and also in dense cellular areas where macrophages were abundant. Expression of LPL co-localized with decorin and ox-LDL. In turn, valves with higher amount of ox-LDL had elevated number of LPL transcripts. In addition, we documented that the small, dense HDL phenotype was associated with an elevated amount of ox-LDL and LPL transcripts within CAVD. Furthermore, expression of LPL was associated with several indices of fibrocalcific remodelling of the aortic valve. CONCLUSION: Expression of LPL within CAVD is related to the amount of ox-LDL, which is, in turn, associated with the small, dense HDL phenotype. Lipid retention associated with smaller HDL particles may participate in the expression of LPL, whereby a fibrocalcific remodelling of the aortic valve is promoted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".