Apolipoprotein(a) Phenotype and Lipoprotein(a) Level Predict Peritoneal Dialysis Patient Mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level, apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] phenotype, and patient mortality in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. DESIGN: Observational prospective study of prevalent PD patients. SETTING: Tertiary-care health sciences center. PATIENTS: 54 prevalent PD patients were followed prospectively for 24 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The exposures were Lp(a) level and apo(a) phenotype, designated by the apo(a) isoform size (number of kringle 4 repeats). Outcome was death from any cause. RESULTS: There were 24 deaths in 77.9 patient-years' follow-up. The independent predictors of death in the multivariate survival analysis were age [relative risk (RR) = 1.03, p = 0.23], diabetes (RR = 3.00, p = 0.03), diastolic blood pressure < or = 70 mmHg (RR = 2.94, p = 0.03), serum albumin (RR = 0.87, p < 0.01), and Lp(a) level (RR = 1.004, p < 0.01). There was strong inverse correlation of Lp(a) with apo(a) isoform size (r = -0.62, p < 0.01). With Lp(a) removed from the model, apo(a) isoform size was a significant predictor of death (RR = 0.91, p = 0.0497). CONCLUSIONS: Lipoprotein(a) level and apo(a) phenotype are associated with PD patient mortality. Measurement of Lp(a) level and apo(a) phenotype may be useful in clinical practice to identify patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Large prospective studies are needed to determine if a reversal of the increase in Lp(a) level associated with renal disease and dialysis is feasible and beneficial in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".