Effects of secondary amyloidosis on arteriovenous hemodialysis fistula outcomes and intradialytic hypotension: A case‐control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amyloid fibrils can affect vascular structure through deposition and by causing nitric oxide depletion and increase of asymmetric dimethyl arginine. Patients with amyloidosis are prone to development of hypotension. Hypotension may also affect the maturation of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and may set the stage for formation of thrombosis and fistula failure. Thus, we aimed to evaluate effects of secondary amyloidosis on AVF outcomes and intradialytic hypotension. This is a case-control study which included 20 hemodialysis patients with amyloidosis and 20 hemodialysis patients without amyloidosis as control group. All patients underwent Doppler ultrasound of AVF. A thorough fistula history and baseline laboratory values along with episodes of intradialytic hypotension and blood pressure measurements were recorded. There was no difference between the groups regarding age, gender, body mass index, presence of comorbidities, hypertension, and drug use. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were similar (119 ± 28/75 ± 17 and 120 ± 14/75 ± 10 mmHg for patients with and without amyloidosis, respectively). Intradialytic hypotension episodes were also similar. Patients with amyloidosis had significantly lower serum albumin and higher C-reactive protein values compared to control hemodialysis patients. AVF sites and total number of created fistulas were similar in both groups. Flow rates of current functional AVFs were not different between the groups (1084 ± 875 and 845 ± 466 mL/minute for patients with and without amyloidosis, respectively, p:0.67). Patency duration of first AVF was not different between the groups. Clinical fistula outcomes and rate of intradialytic hypotension episodes were not significantly different between patients with and without secondary systemic amyloidosis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".