Glucose and insulin metabolism are important determinants of left ventricular mass in obese hypertensives.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity and hypertension, the major modifiable clinical determinants of left ventricular mass, are both associated with a state of insulin resistance. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationships between glucose and insulin metabolism and left ventricular mass in a group of obese, nondiabetic, hypertensive people. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two obese, nondiabetic, hypertensive people (10 men), free of coronary or valvular heart disease, with normal left ventricular function were studied. The mean age was 55+/-12 years, body mass index 32.8+/-4.8 kg/m2, and systolic and diastolic blood pressures 149.0+/-11.0 mmHg and 98.0+/-4.0 mmHg, respectively. Left ventricular mass corrected for height (LVM/Ht) and glucose and insulin metabolism (3 h intravenous glucose tolerance test) were measured after a four- to six-week washout period of any antihypertensive medication. RESULTS: The mean LVM/Ht was 119.5+/-11.9 kg/m. The following metabolic measures correlated with LVM/Ht in a univariate analysis: total insulin integration area (r=0.54, P=0.008); fasting insulin (r=0.43, P=0.04); insulin at 90 min (r=0.54, P=0.013); and peak glucose levels (r=0.51, P=0.013). Stepwise multivariate linear regression analysis showed that only total insulin integration area (P=0.005) and peak glucose levels (P=0.01) correlated with LVM/Ht. CONCLUSION: In obese, nondiabetic, hypertensive people, left ventricular mass is associated with circulating glucose and insulin levels.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".