MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

VASCULAR AGE AND TARGET ORGAN DAMAGE IN THE MIDDLE-AGED UNTREATED PATIENTS WITH UNCOMPLICATED ESSENTIAL ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION

2018· article· en· W2805388890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
О. Д. Остроумова, А. И. Кочетков, Т. М. Оstroumova, V. А. Parfyonov, Е. В. Борисова, В. А. Перепелов

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyArterial stiffnessFramingham Risk ScoreMontreal Cognitive AssessmentBlood pressureDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: to evaluate relationships between vascular age (VA) and target organ damage (TOD) in the middle-aged naive patients with grade 1–2 essential arterial hypertension (EAH). Design and method: Case-control study. We examined 60 naive patients with uncomplicated grade 1–2 EAH (mean age 53,6 ± 0,8 years). Transthoracic echocardiography (Vivid 7 Dimension system, GE) with calculation of myocardial stiffness parameters was performed in all patients. 2-D speckle tracking echocardiography data were acquired for determination of LV myocardial global longitudinal peak strain (LV GLPS). Cardio-ankle vascular index, ankle-brachial index and augmentation index (AI) were measured using VaSera-1500N system. Brain damage was evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using MAGNETOM Skyra 3.0T, Siemens AG. Arterial spin labeling MRI sequence was applied to analyze cerebral blood flow (CBF). All the patients underwent the neuropsychological assessment with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Trail Making test (part A and part B), Stroop Color and Word Test, verbal fluency test, 10-item word list learning task. VA was calculated by Framingham Heart Study risk tables and SCORE project scales. Results: VA calculated by Framingham Heart Study risk tables (70,6 ± 1,4 years) as well as VA estimated by SCORE project scales (59,1 ± 1,5 years) was significantly higher than chronological one (p < 0,001 and p < 0,01, respectively). VA demonstrated stronger associations with LV GLPS and tissue Doppler-derived left atrial strain (r = 0,271; p < 0,01 and r = −0,206; p < 0,05 for the VA by SCORE; r = 0,401; p < 0,001 and r = −0,210; p < 0,05 for the VA by Framingham Heart Study). Only AI closer correlated with VA: r = 0,447 for the VA by SCORE and r = 0,449 for the VA by Framingham Heart Study; p < 0,001 in both cases. VA by Framingham Heart Study negatively significantly correlated with MoCA score (r = −0,282; p < 0,05), verbal fluency test score (r = −0,246; p < 0,05), right sided CBF (r = −0,374; p < 0,01) and left sided CBF (r = −0,392; p < 0,01). Right- and left sided CBF also demonstrated significant associations with VA calculated by SCORE project scales (r = −0,326; p < 0,01 and r = −0,298; p < 0,05). Conclusions: VA, especially estimated by Framingham Heart Study risk tables, is associated with cardiac, vascular and cerebral TOD in the middle-aged naive patients with uncomplicated grade 1–2 EAH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207