MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052722120 · doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hfp044

Growth Hormone Resistance in Severe Heart Failure Resolves After Cardiac Transplantation

2009· article· en· W2052722120 on OpenAlexaff
Lars H. Lund, Pamela U. Freda, Jill J. Williams, John J. LaManca, Thierry H. LeJemtel, Donna Mancini

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureHeart transplantationInternal medicineCachexiaCardiologyInsulin resistanceHormoneTransplantationEndocrinologyObesityCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Severe heart failure (HF) is associated with cachexia; this is often reversed post cardiac transplantation (HTx) with frequent development of obesity. Growth hormone (GH) resistance is common in HF and may contribute to cachexia. Whether GH resistance resolves post HTx is unknown. We aimed to confirm that HF is associated with GH resistance and to test the hypothesis that GH resistance resolves post HTx. METHODS AND RESULTS: We measured GH, insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and body composition in 10 HF patients awaiting HTx, in 18 patients 11 +/- 8 months post HTx, and seven controls. Body mass index was 23.5 +/- 3.2 in HF patients and 29.3 +/- 5.7 post HTx. HTx patients had gained 14 +/- 8 kg since HTx. GH was elevated in HF (control: 0.21 +/- 0.25; HF: 1.13 +/- 1.19; HTx: 0.11 +/- 0.13 ng/mL; P < 0.007), while IGF-1 was higher in HTx (control: 114 +/- 57; HF: 94 +/- 52; HTx: 190 +/- 106 ng/mL; P < 0.02). HTx had higher total body and abdominal fat %. CONCLUSION: GH resistance is present in severe HF and resolves post HTx. These findings should be confirmed through larger trials.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207