Role of epicardial fat thickness and irisin levels in early prediction of cardiac dysfunction in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction to assess the role of epicardial fat thickness and irisin in early prediction of cardiac dysfunction in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus and correlate them with echocardiographic parameters and lipid profile. Material and methods Sixty-three type 1 diabetic children and adolescents were recruited from the Pediatric Diabetic Clinic, National Research Centre. Thirty-four healthy children, matched for age and sex, served as controls. All patients were insulin dependent with at least 3-year duration of the disease since diagnosis. Venous blood was withdrawn under complete aseptic precautions from fasting subjects; sera were collected for evaluation of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C), lipid profile and irisin levels. Two-dimensional echocardiography was performed for measurement of interventricular septal thickness in diastole, left atrial diameter (LAD), aortic root diameter, mitral E and A wave, left ventricular internal dimension in diastole, percent fractional shortening (FS%), percent ejection fraction, left ventricular mass, and epicardial fat thickness. Patients were further divided into two groups according to their glycaemic control (< 7.00, ≥ 7.0) for comparison of echocardiographic parameters and irisin. Results Echocardiographic study revealed a statistically significant increase in LAD, FS%, and epicardial fat thickness in patients compared to controls (p = 0.000, 0.014, and 0.000 respectively). Triglyceride and irisin levels were significantly increased in patients compared to controls (p = 0.012, 0.015 respectively). Epicardial fat thickness positively correlated with left atrial diameter (p = 0.009) and left ventricular mass (p = 0.000). Irisin was positively correlated with E/A ratio (p = 0.05). Conclusions The findings of the present study probably indicate the beginning of a state of metabolically induced diastolic dysfunction. Echocardiography should be performed in type 1 diabetic patients on a regular basis for early detection of subclinical cardiac dysfunction.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".