Abstract 271: Evidence of Arterial Stiffness in Young Adult Women Born Extremely Preterm (<29 weeks).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Epidemiological studies reported that preterm infants have increased arterial systemic blood pressure in adulthood. We have recently shown in an animal model that premature vascular aging could be involved in this process. Aim: To assess biophysical properties (arterial stiffness) of the aorta as early signs of a vascular aging process in young adult women born extremely preterm. Methods: We studied 4 women (aged 24±1 years) born extremely preterm (26.1±0.5 weeks, 803±58 grams) in the absence of any significant medical or psychiatric co-morbidity. Subjects were compared to 6 control women born at term (40.6±0.8 weeks, 32518±139 grams) matched for age. The aortic diameters, the pulse wave transit time around the aortic arch and the ascending aortic peak flow were measured with echo-Doppler and the blood pressure recorded. Pulse wave velocity, aortic input impedance (Zi), characteristic impedance (Zc), arterial pressure-strain elastic modulus (Ep), and arterial wall stiffness index (βSI) were calculated. Results: Preterm women had slightly but not significantly increased arterial systolic blood pressure compared to young women born term (111±6 vs. 104±2 mmHg, p=0.23). Diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure were similar (62±4 vs. 61±3, p=0.84 and 77±4 vs. 75±3 mmHg, p=0.73 respectively). Pulse wave velocity did not differ between groups (3.6±0.6 vs. 3.2±0.2 m/sec, p=0.53). βSI and Ep, direct indices of central arterial rigidity, were not significantly different between preterm women compared to controls (4.9±2.1 vs. 3.7±0.4, p=0.46 and 58±24 vs. 42±4 kPa, p=0.38 respectively). Zc and Zi, indices of the resistance to ejection to blood flow, were increased compared to controls (134±21 vs. 105±9, p=0.18 and 185±8 vs. 152±10, p<0.05 dynes. sec. cm -5 , respectively). Conclusions: This first series of results suggest that women who were born very preterm present indices of arterial rigidity compared to term controls. This alteration of the vascular tree could be a patho-physiological mechanism linking prematurity to adult cardiovascular diseases.
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) | 0.002 | 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".