Ankylosing Spondylitis Is Associated with Increased Prevalence of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy is a strong precursor for clinical CVD. The aim of our study was to assess whether having AS was associated with increased prevalence of LV hypertrophy. Methods. Clinical and echocardiographic data from 139 AS patients and 126 age- and sex-matched controls was used. LV mass was calculated according to guidelines and indexed to height2.7. LV hypertrophy was considered present if LV mass index was > 49.2 g/m2.7 in men and > 46.7 g/m2.7 in women. Results. Patients with AS were on average 49 ± 12 years old, and 60% were men. The prevalence of hypertension (HTN; 35% vs 41%) and diabetes (5% vs 2%) was similar among patients and controls, while patients with AS had higher serum C-reactive protein level (CRP; p < 0.001). The prevalence of LV hypertrophy was higher in patients with AS compared to controls (15% vs 6%, p = 0.01). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, having AS was associated with OR 6.3 (95% CI 2.1–19.3, p = 0.001) of having LV hypertrophy independent of the presence of HTN, diabetes, and obesity. In multivariable linear regression analyses, having AS was also associated with higher LV mass (β 0.15, p = 0.007) after adjusting for CVD risk factors including sex, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, and serum CRP (multiple R2 = 0.41, p < 0.001). Conclusion. Having AS was associated with increased prevalence of LV hypertrophy independent of CVD risk factors. This finding strengthens the indication for thorough CVD risk assessment in patients with AS.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".