Left ventricular growth after 1 year of haemodialysis does not correlate with arteriovenous access flow: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of congestive heart failure is 3-fold greater than that of acute coronary syndrome in haemodialysis (HD) patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if blood flow through an arteriovenous (AV) access contributes to an increase in left ventricular mass (LVM) that may increase the risk of congestive heart failure. METHODS: We conducted a 1-year prospective cohort study at two Canadian centres of HD patients at high risk for congestive heart failure who had a first AV access created. Patients underwent echocardiography and measurement of plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels before and 1-year post-AV access creation. Access flows were measured within the first month of access maturation and 1-year post-access creation. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Student's t-test, correlation coefficients and regression. RESULTS: One-year post-AV access creation, LVM increased by 12.2 +/- 32% (P = 0.025) and plasma NT-proBNP levels increased by 170 +/- 465% (P = 0.02). The average AV access blood flow did not correlate with an increase in LVM or NT-proBNP levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on chronic HD after 1 year, AV access flow does not correlate with increases in LVM by echocardiography or plasma levels of NT-proBNP.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".