Interdialytic blood pressure obtained by ambulatory blood pressure measurement and left ventricular structure in hypertensive hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike in subjects with normal renal function, the relationship between hypertension and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in dialysis patients is still being debated. In order to clarify this issue, we performed 44-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM) during the interdialytic period in a group of 164 hypertensive patients, the blood pressure (BP) control based on conventional antihypertensive strategy previously, on chronic hemodialysis treatment in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. These results were then compared with their echocardiographic data. This is a cross-sectional analysis. The mean ABPM during 44 hours was close to the manually measured predialysis value, but there was a gradual increase in the ABPM values in the interdialytic period. When divided into a group with mild or no left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (45 patients) and severe LVH (119 patients), the latter had significantly higher BP levels in all separate periods, while the difference in predialysis BP was not significant. Patients with severe LVH had larger left atrium and left ventricular diameters, and consumed more antihypertensive drugs. Systolic BP during the night before dialysis showed the strongest relation to LVH, but interdialytic weight gain was also independently related to LVH. Yet, 56% of the patients with systolic BP <135 had severe LVH. There is not only an association between BP and presence of LVH, but it is shown that volume expansion is also an important independent determinant of LVH. This may explain the difficulty in identifying hypertension as a cardiac risk factor in these patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".