The Reliability and Validity of Echocardiographic Measurement of Left Ventricular Mass Index in Hemodialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the reliability and validity of a formula, based on echocardiographically derived parameters, to calculate left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in a group of 15 chronic hemodialysis patients. All patients had M-mode echocardiography before and after a hemodialysis session. Echocardiograms were interpreted by 2 observers blind to each other's measurements. Interobserver reliability for LVMI was high (r = 0.94, p < 0.0007). LVMI decreased in 11 of 15 patients during dialysis and increased in 4. The mean difference in LVMI between pre- and posthemodialysis was 26.2 +/- 15 g/m2 (p < 0.0001). End-diastolic diameter decreased from 53.5 +/- 5.9 to 49.5 +/- 7.5 mm (p = 0.0016). These data indicate that measurement of LVMI is highly reproducible in hemodialysis patients but that it changes significantly over the course of a hemodialysis session. Its use as an outcome measure in clinical trials in hemodialysis patients should be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".