Correlation of Pulse Wave Velocity with Left Ventricular Mass in Patients with Hypertension Once Blood Pressure has been Normalized
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vascular stiffness has been proposed as a simple method to assess arterial loading conditions of the heart which induce left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). There is some controversy as to whether the relationship of vascular stiffness to LVH is independent of blood pressure, and which measurement of arterial stiffness, augmentation index (AI) or pulse wave velocity (PWV) is best. Carotid pulse wave contor and pulse wave velocity of patients (n=20) with hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was under control (<140/90 mmHg) with antihypertensive drug treatment medications, and without valvular heart disease, were measured. Left ventricular mass, calculated from 2D echocardiogram, was adjusted for body size using two different methods: body surface area and height. There was a significant (P<0.05) linear correlation between LV mass index and pulse wave velocity. This was not explained by BP level or lower LV mass in women, as there was no significant difference in PWV according to gender (1140.1+67.8 vs 1110.6+57.7 cm/s). In contrast to PWV, there was no significant correlation between LV mass and AI. In summary, these data suggest that aortic vascular stiffness is an indicator of LV mass even when blood pressure is controlled to less than 140/90 mmHg in hypertensive patients. The data further suggest that PWV is a better proxy or surrogate marker for LV mass than AI and the measurement of PWV may be useful as a rapid and less expensive assessment of the presence of LVH in this patient population.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it