Left ventricular filling pressure in male patients with type 2 diabetes and normal versus low total testosterone levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a common complication of diabetes characterized by an elevation in left ventricular filling pressures (LVF) that often develops in the absence of clinical symptoms. Diastolic dysfunction in the setting of low total testosterone (LTT) occurs through changes in the regulation of peripheral hemodynamics. LTT is highly prevalent among individuals with type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to compare LVF in male diabetic patients with no structural heart disease and normal serum testosterone levels vs. those with LTT. METHODS: Type 2 diabetic patients were assessed using tissue Doppler imaging to evaluate LVF and other conventional parameters of diastolic function. The E/e' ratio was used to estimate LVF through the ratio of peak passive trans-mitral left ventricular inflow velocity to the peak passive inflow velocity at the lateral mitral annulus. Patients were assigned to one of two groups based upon their total testosterone levels. Group A consisted of low (< 3.5 ng/mL) testosterone levels and group B consisted of normal (> 3.5 ng/mL) testosterone levels. RESULTS: A total of 148 male patients were included: group A--47 (32%) patients; group B--101 (68%) patients, respectively. Mean age was 58 ± 5.8 years and mean time of diabetes evolution was 7 ± 3.1 years. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding age, duration of diabetes evolution, hypertension, weight, heart rate, body mass index, and echocardiographic parameters. The E/e' ratio for group A was 8.05 ± 1.9 vs. 6.1 ± 1.7 for group B (p < 0.0001). The E/A ratio was 0.94 ± 0.10 vs. 1.19 ± 0.12 (p = 0.01), deceleration time 242 ± 7.4 ms vs. 205 ± 9 ms (p = 0.026) and systolic pulmonary artery pressure 27 ± ± 2.2 mm Hg vs. 22 ± 1.7 mm Hg (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 2 diabetes and LTT have a higher E/e' ratio demonstrating a pre-clinical increase in LVF when compared to similar patients with normal testosterone levels. This finding is independent of time of diabetes evolution, hypertension and other echocardiographic parameters.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".