Development, Prevention, and Potential Reversal of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Chronic Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a high prevalence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy is recognized with increasing severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD), previously neither its progression nor its potential for prevention or reversal has been addressed adequately in this population group. A nested analysis of a 2-yr study involving 155 patients with stage 3/4 CKD, examining effects of hemoglobin change (range, 90 to 130 g/L) on LV mass in patients with (n = 46; 30%) and without (n = 105; 70%) initial LV hypertrophy, is reported. At baseline, the group with LV hypertrophy was older (P < 0.01), had higher BP (P < 0.01), had greater LV wall and cavity dimensions (P < 0.001), and had more prevalent use of antihypertensive agents (P < 0.001) but a lower hemoglobin concentration (P < 0.05) and GFR (P < 0.01). A total of 117 patients were available for assessment at 2 yr. Importantly, 57 (68%) with initial normal LV indices showed no appreciable change with time; however, 27 (32%) developed LV hypertrophy, with growth in both wall and cavity dimensions (P < 0.001). In contrast, 23 (50%) of those with initial LV hypertrophy maintained elevated LV indices, whereas 10 (22%) regressed, through wall but not cavity reduction, to within normal LV indices. Predisposing factors to maintaining or achieving normal LV mass dimensions included relative youth (P < 0.05), a lower pulse pressure (P < 0.05), and a higher GFR (P < 0.05) but not hemoglobin concentration or parathyroid hormone levels. These findings suggest that even at a relatively advanced stage of renal dysfunction, control of BP and volume, together with regulated metabolic and clinical indices, may contribute to the prevention or even reversal of LV hypertrophy in a substantial proportion of 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".