Pulmonary hypertension in end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis and pre-dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a frequent and serious cardiovascular complication in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of PH and its associated factors in patients with ESRD on maintenance dialysis and predialysis patients. METHODS: The medical records of ESRD patients who underwent kidney transplantation between January 2011 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic and clinical characteristics including echocardiographic findings before joining the waiting list for transplantation were evaluated and compared among groups divided according to dialysis or not and dialysis types. The results of transthoracic Doppler echocardiography were used to determine the pulmonary artery pressure. Pulmonary hypertension was defined as a systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) greater than 35 mmHg. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate factors associated with PH. RESULTS: Data from 35 pre-dialysis patients with ESRD, 72 maintenance hemodialysis (HD) and 34 peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients were analysed. Pulmonary hypertension was 20.69% in pre-dialysis patients, 16.7% in HD patients and 14.7% in PD patients (P=0.957). There were negative correlations between sPAP and calcium (r=-0.230, P=0.012), Ca×P(r=-0.210, P=0.021), hemoglobin (r=-0.243, P=0.008) and a positive correlation between sPAP and cardiac output (r=0.481, P=0.000). Cardiac output (CO) was an independent risk factor of sPAP (B=1.431, confidence interval [CI] 95%: 0.687 to 2.175, P=0.000). CONCLUSION: Incidence of PH was not statistically different in ESRD patients on dialysis and pre-dialysis patients. Uremia may play a major role in the pathogenesis of PH in patients.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".