Circulating neurotrophins and hemostatic risk factors of atherothrombotic cardiovascular disease at baseline and during sympathetic challenge: the SABPA study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sympathetic activation may trigger acute coronary syndromes. We examined the relation between circulating neurotrophic factors and hemostatic risk factors of atherothrombotic cardiovascular disease at baseline and in response to acute mental stress to establish a brain-heart link. In 409 black and white South Africans, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and fibrinolytic measures were assessed at baseline. Glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), S100 calcium-binding protein (S100B), von Willebrand factor (VWF), fibrinogen and D-dimer were assessed at baseline and 10 min after the Stroop test. Neurotrophins were regressed on hemostatic measures adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, cardiometabolic factors and health behaviors. Higher baseline BDNF was associated with greater stress-induced increase in fibrinogen (p = 0.003) and lower D-dimer increase (p = 0.016). Higher baseline S100B was significantly associated with higher baseline VWF (p = 0.031) and lower fibrinogen increase (p = 0.048). Lower baseline GDNF was associated with higher baseline VWF (p = 0.035) but lower VWF increase (p = 0.001). Greater GDNF (p = 0.006) and S100B (p = 0.042) increases were associated with lower VWF increase. All associations showed small-to-moderate effect sizes. Neurotrophins and fibrinolytic factors showed no significant associations. The findings support the existence of a peripheral neurothrophin-hemostasis interaction of small-to-moderate clinical relevance. The implications for atherothrombotic cardiovascular disease need further exploration.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".