Assessment of cardiac structure and function in patients without and with peripheral oedema during rosiglitazone treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thiazolidinediones cause peripheral oedema, the aetiology of which remains poorly understood. METHODS: In a sub-study of a 6-month trial comparing rosiglitazone (Rsg) versus placebo, we compared those with versus without oedema among the 74 subjects treated with Rsg with respect to peak oxygen consumption indexed to fat-free mass (VO(2peak-FFM) ), cardiac MRI and markers of plasma volume expansion. RESULTS: Almost half (49%) of the Rsg-treated patients developed oedema. Baseline VO(2peak-FFM) was not different between those with versus without oedema (25.8 versus 28.2 ml/kg/min; p = 0.22) and declined 5% in the oedema group (Δ -1.3 ml/min/kg; p = 0.005) with no change in those without oedema. Stroke volume increased in both groups (Δ 8.7 and 8.8 ml; p < 0.001 for each); end-diastolic volume increased only in those with oedema (+13.1 ml; p = 0.001). No other cardiac function changes were observed. In both groups, weight increased (3.6 and 2.2 kg) and haematocrit decreased (-3.2% and -2.1%; p < 0.001 for each). In those with oedema, albumin decreased (-0.2 g/dl) and brain natriuretic peptide increased (11.9 pg/ml; p < 0.03 for each). CONCLUSIONS: Oedema was associated with a small decline in VO(2peak FFM), no adverse effects on cardiac function, and changes in selected measures suggesting that volume expansion underpins Rsg oedema.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".