Clinical Impact of Hemorheology Assessed Using the Microchannel Array Flow Analyzer on Renal Resistive Index in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The renal resistive index (RRI) assessed using ultrasonography is reportedly associated with not only kidney function but also cardiovascular disease incidence. In contrast, hemorheology assessed using the microchannel array flow analyzer (MC-FAN) has demonstrated the significance of cardiovascular risk factors in recent clinical studies. This cross-sectional study aimed to clarify the clinical impact of hemorheology assessed using MC-FAN on RRI in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from the perspective of primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Methods: In total, 302 outpatients undergoing treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (121 males and 181 females; mean age ± standard deviation, 66 ± 12 years) with no history of cardiovascular diseases were enrolled. The whole blood passage time (WBPT) was assessed using MC-FAN as a marker of hemorheology, and the relationship between RRI and various clinical parameters including WBPT was examined. Results: A significant positive correlation was observed between WBPT and RRI (correlation coefficient = 0.48; P < 0.001). Furthermore, the multiple regression analysis demonstrated that WBPT was selected as an independent variable for RRI as a subordinate factor (? = 0.37; P < 0.001). Patients with high WBPT (? 70 s) and median WBPT (50.2 - 69.6 s) had a significantly higher risk (odds ratio (OR): 7.9; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.4 - 19.6; P < 0.01 and OR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1 - 7.8; P < 0.05, respectively) of having a high RRI (? 0.70) than those with low WBPT (? 50.0 s). Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that hemorheology assessed using MC-FAN is an important determining factor for RRI in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, we suggest that an increase in RRI can be prevented by maintaining WBPT ? 50.0 s. Further investigation of a large number of prospective studies, including intervention therapies, will be required to confirm the results of this study. J Endocrinol Metab. 2017;7(5):146-152 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem448w
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".