Waist-to-Hip Ratio, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Death in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. The primary objective of this study was to determine the relationship between waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), cardiovascular (CV) events, and mortality in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. A secondary objective was to investigate the association between abdominal obesity and systemic inflammatory markers. Methods. This is a prospective study of 22 prevalent PD patients. WHR was measured at baseline. C-reactive protein (CRP), tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) were measured. Main outcomes were first CV event and death from all causes. Survival analysis was used to examine the relationship between anthropomorphic measures and clinical outcomes. Results. Mean follow-up period was 3.1 years. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, survival was lower in those with higher WHR (P = .002). In Cox regression, WHR independently predicted mortality and first CV event after adjustment for known ischemic heart disease (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.30 for death; HR 1.13, CI 1.01-1.26 for CV event). WHR correlated with serum TNF-α (r = 0.45; P = .05). Conclusion. The results of this study suggest WHR may be a risk factor for increased CV events and mortality in PD patients. Abdominal obesity is also associated with inflammatory markers. Larger studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".