Elastic aortic properties in cystic fibrosis adults without cardiovascular risk factors: A case‐control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The presence of CFTR in smooth muscle and endothelial cells, systemic inflammation, and oxidative stress could explain vascular alterations in cystic fibrosis. Aortic elastic properties are determinants of left ventricular function by means of ventriculo-arterial coupling and indicators of cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to compare clinically stable patients affected by cystic fibrosis without overt pulmonary hypertension with controls to evaluate aortic tissue Doppler elastic properties, such as distensibility, stiffness, and strain. METHODS: A total of 22 adults affected by cystic fibrosis, and 24 healthy volunteers matched for age and sex were enrolled. None had known cardiovascular risk factors, secondary diabetes, neither aortic stenosis nor regurgitation. All people underwent blood pressure measurement and transthoracic echocardiography. RESULTS: Aortic diameter measured at Valsalva sinuses was significantly higher in patients with cystic fibrosis than healthy people, median 32.0 (interquartile range 29.8-35.0) vs 24.3 (22.2-30.0) mm; P < 0.001. Aortic distensibility was significantly lower among patients than controls, being 2.4 (1.3-3.3) vs 5.6 (3.4-8.3) per mm Hg (P < 0.001), while stiffness higher, 7.7 (6.0-14.8) vs 3.7 (2.9-6.7); P < 0.001. Finally, M-mode strain of ascending aorta was lower in patients, 4.1 (3.4-7.3)% than in controls, 13.4 (7.7-19.4)%; P < 0.001. CONCLUSION: For the first time in humans, we demonstrated subclinical alterations in aortic elastic properties in young adults affected by cystic fibrosis without pulmonary hypertension or secondary diabetes. This phenomenon could influence left ventricular function earlier by means of ventriculo-arterial coupling and may be a tool to identify patients who benefit from a closer follow-up.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".