Abstract 374: Sexual Dimorphism And Elabela Expression In Peripheral Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Elabela is a component of the apelinergic system known to regulate immune responses and has a cardiovascular protection role, including atherosclerosis. Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is the narrowing or blockage of larger arteries in the legs. Patients with PAD suffer from poor perfusion to their lower extremities, in addition to increased rates of cardiovascular complications. The role of sexual dimorphism in the immune system in the PAD is poorly understood. Our previous research suggests that Elabela may hold a gender-dependent protective role that can be used as immunotherapeutic. We hypothesized that in patients with PAD, expression of Elabela will be different between males and females, implicating in sexual dimorphism of the immune response, the disease outcome, and treatment. Methods: Blood samples were collected from PAD patients (n=8) and risk factor closely matched controls (n=8). PBMCs were isolated by gradient centrifugation. By flow cytometry, gating strategy on Elabela, and Elabela expressing leukocytes, using FlowJow software for analysis. Results: The results showed that there is a sexual difference in the expression of Elabela in both controls and patients with PAD. In general, males showed a high level of Elabela than females. PAD decreases Elabela expression in both males and females. Regarding Elabela expressing leukocytes, in female controls, there was no significant difference in leukocyte expression of Elabela as compared to PAD patients, while male controls demonstrated increased leukocyte expression of Elabela. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a potential role for Elabela in PAD. Importantly, these results also indicate a difference in Elabela expression based on sex dimorphism. Such differences could potentially be used as a biomarker in the diagnosis and prognosis of PAD along with therapeutic values.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".