Sex differences in vascular dysfunction and cardiovascular outcomes: The cardiac, endothelial function, and arterial stiffness in ESRD (CERES) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent studies suggest that women with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) may have higher rates of mortality than men, but it is unknown whether sex differences in vascular function explain this disparity. The cardiac, endothelial function, and arterial stiffness in ESRD (CERES) study is an ongoing, prospective observational study designed to investigate vascular function, myocardial injury, and cardiovascular outcomes in ESRD. METHODS: Among 200 CERES participants (34% women), we evaluated arterial wave reflections as augmentation index normalized to a heart rate of 75 (AIx75), arterial stiffness as pulse wave velocity, and macro- and microvascular endothelial dysfunction as flow-mediated dilation and velocity time integral (VTI). Over a median of 14 months, participants were followed for the composite outcome of cardiovascular hospitalization or all-cause death. FINDINGS: Women had higher arterial wave reflection (Mean, SD AIx75 30% ± 9% for women vs. 21% ± 10% for men; P < 0.001) and worse microvascular function (VTI 55 ± 30 cm for women vs. 70 ± 27 cm for men; P = 0.007). After multivariable adjustment, female sex remained associated with a 0.5-SD higher AIx75 (95% CI [0.01, 0.9]) and 0.3-SD lower VTI (95%CI [0.1, 0.7]). Women experienced higher adjusted rates of the composite outcome (HR 2.5; 95%CI [1.1, 5.6]; P = 0.03), and further adjustment for arterial wave reflection attenuated this risk. DISCUSSION: Vascular dysfunction may partly explain the association of female sex with higher cardiovascular risk and mortality in patients with ESRD. Further studies are needed to explore whether sex differences in vascular function predict long-term outcomes, and whether hormonal or inflammatory factors explain these associations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".