Arterial Hypertension Is Associated with Increased Serum Lipoprotein(a) Levels in End‐Stage Renal Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In addition to disorders in lipoprotein metabolism, several other factors are involved in the development of atherosclerotic changes in end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. One of these is arterial hypertension. We evaluated serum lipids—total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), apolipoproteins (AI , A II , B, E), lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]—in 109 ESRD patients on dialysis [46 on hemodialysis (HD); 63 on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD)] and in 45 hyperlipidemic patients without renal failure (HL group). Dialysis patients were divided in two groups. Group A included 42 hypertensive patients (mean age: 62.3 ± 15.5 years) whose blood pressure (BP) was satisfactorily controlled with anti‐hypertensive medications. Group B included 67 non hypertensive patients (mean age: 66.6 ± 11.9 years). Levels of Lp(a) were significantly higher in both the HD (p = 0.001) and the CAPD (p < 0.05) patients as compared with the HL group. When the HD and CAPD groups were divided into hypertensive and non hypertensive patients, Lp(a) levels were significantly higher in the hypertensive patients; this difference was not observed among non renal failure patients. These results indicate that arterial hypertension is associated with elevated Lp(a) serum levels in ESRD patients undergoing either HD or CAPD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".