Adult males with haemophilia have a different macrovascular and microvascular endothelial function profile compared with healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Endothelial function has been identified as an independent predictor of cardiovascular risk in the general population. It is unclear if the haemophilia population has a different endothelial function profile compared to the healthy population. AIM: This prospective study aims to assess if there is a difference in endothelial function between haemophilia patients and healthy controls, and the impact of endothelial function on vascular outcomes in the haemophilia population. Baseline cardiovascular risk factors and endothelial function were presented. METHODS: Adult males with haemophilia A or B recruited from the British Columbia and Southern Alberta haemophilia treatment centres were matched to healthy male controls by age and cardiovascular risk factors. Macrovascular endothelial function was assessed by brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and nitroglycerin-mediated dilation (NMD), and microvascular endothelial function was assessed by hyperaemic velocity time integral (VTI). Multivariable linear regression was used to assess the association between haemophilia and endothelial function. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients with haemophilia and 243 controls were included. Patients with haemophilia had a similar FMD and NMD compared to controls, although haemophilia was associated with higher FMD on multivariable analysis. Haemophilia was associated with significantly lower VTI on univariate and multivariable analyses, regardless of haemophilia type and severity. CONCLUSIONS: Adult males with haemophilia appear to have lower microvascular endothelial function compared to healthy controls. Future studies to assess the impact of endothelial dysfunction on cardiovascular events in the haemophilia population are needed.
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) | 0.003 | 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".