Myocardial contractile function and intradialytic hypotension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dialysis-induced hypotension remains a significant problem in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Numerous factors result in dysregulation of blood pressure control and impaired myocardial reserve in response to HD-induced cardiovascular stress. Episodic intradialytic hypotension may be involved in the pathogenesis of evolving myocardial injury. We performed an initial pilot investigation of cardiovascular functional response to pharmacological cardiovascular stress in hypotension-resistant (HR) and hypotension-prone (HP) HD patients. We studied 10 matched chronic HD patients (5 HP, 5 HR). Dobutamine-atropine stress (DAS) was performed on a nondialysis short interval day, with noninvasive pulse-wave analysis using the Finometer to continuously measure hemodynamic variables. Baroreflex sensitivity was assessed at rest and during DAS. Baseline hemodynamic variables were not significantly different. The groups had differing hemodynamic responses to DAS. The Mean arterial pressure was unchanged in the HR group but decreased in HP patients (-13.6 +/- 3.5 mmHg; P<0.001). This was associated with failure to significantly increase cardiac output in the HP group (cf. increase in cardiac output in the HR group of +33.4 +/- 6%; P<0.05), and a reduced response in total peripheral resistance (HP -10.3 +/- 6.8%, HR -22.7 +/- 2.9%, P=NS). Baroreflex sensitivity was not significantly different between groups at baseline or within groups with increasing levels of DAS; however, the mean baroreflex sensitivity was higher in HR cf. HP subjects throughout pharmacological stress (P<0.05). Hypotension-prone patients appear to have an impaired cardiovascular response to DAS. The most significant abnormality is an impaired myocardial contractile reserve. Early identification of these patients would allow utilization of therapeutic strategies to improve intradialytic tolerability, potentially abrogating aggravation of myocardial injury.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".