Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in End-Stage Renal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH; left ventricular wall thickness greater than or equal to 1-2 cm in diastole) among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients and the most important risk factors that independently relate to LVH, 189 non-diabetic ESRD patients without dilated cardiomyopathy in two centres had echocardiography and full clinical review. 104 of 189 (55%) patients had LVH consisting of 52 of 83 (65%) patients on haemodialysis, 18 of 20 (90%) peritoneal dialysis patients and 34 of 86 (40%) transplanted patients. Using multiple logistic regression, the most important factors which independently related to LVH, in all patients studied, were dialysis as current ESRD treatment (p less than 0.001), followed by age (p = 0.008), hypertension as defined by number of blood pressure medications (p = 0.007), followed by high serum alkaline phosphatase which probably reflects hyperparathyroidism (p = 0.03). In a subset of patients with severe LVH (left ventricular wall thickness greater than or equal to 1.4 cm), a high serum alkaline phosphatase level was the best predictor of LVH (p less than 0.001), followed by high diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.004) and age (p = 0.02). In dialysis patients, the most important variable were age (p = 0.009) and high serum alkaline phosphatase (p = 0.03). In the transplant group, patients with LVH were taking significantly more antihypertensive medications than those without LVH (p = 0.002). This variable was the only predictor of LVH in the transplant group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".