Local arterial stiffness measured by ultrafast ultrasound imaging in childhood cancer survivors treated with anthracyclines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is conflicting literature regarding the long-term effect of anthracycline treatment on arterial stiffness. This study assessed local arterial stiffness using ultrafast ultrasound imaging (UUI) in anthracycline treated childhood cancer survivors, at rest and during exercise. Methods 20 childhood cancer survivors (mean age 21.02 ± 9.45 years) treated with anthracyclines (mean cumulative dose 200.7 ± 126.80 mg/m2) and 21 healthy controls (mean age 26.00 ± 8.91 years) were included. Participants completed a demographic survey, fasting bloodwork for cardiovascular biomarkers, and performed a submaximal exercise test on a semi-supine bicycle. Pulse wave velocity (PWV) was measured in the left common carotid artery by direct pulse wave imaging using UUI at rest and submaximal exercise. Both PWV at the systolic foot (PWV-SF) and dicrotic notch (PWV-DN) were measured. Central (carotid-femoral) PWV was obtained by applanation tonometry. Carotid measurements were taken by conventional ultrasound. Measures were compared using two-tailed Students t-test or Chi-squared test, as appropriate. Results There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between childhood cancer survivors and healthy controls in demographic parameters (age, sex, weight, height, BMI), blood biomarkers (total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL-c, HDL-c, hs-CRP, fasting glucose, insulin, Hb A1c), cardiovascular parameters (intima media thickness, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, carotid diameters, distensibility) or PWV measured by UUI at rest or at exercise. There was also no difference in the cardiovascular adaptation between rest and exercise in the two groups (p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed age (p = 0.024) and LDL-c (p = 0.019) to be significant correlates of PWV-SF in childhood cancer survivors, in line with previously published data. Conclusion We did not identify a significant impact of anthracycline treatment in young survivors of childhood cancer on local arterial stiffness in the left common carotid artery as measured by UUI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".