Exact(1)
The poorer evolution of vascular and renal TOD in females, particularly among those with diabetes, may be due to the fact that women show greater stiffness values in the prepubertal period, and this stiffness moreover increases after menopause.
Similar(59)
The AUC of T1 endocan concentrations for prediction of poor evolution is shown in Fig. 3.
A possible association of BL underdosing with poor evolution of infection and organ failures would need more precise evaluation.
In patients with ARDS, plasma endocan concentrations 24 h after diagnosis may be useful to predict poor evolution.
Endocan concentrations on the day after ARDS diagnosis were significantly higher in patients with poor evolution than in those with good evolution [12.0 (6.8–18.6) vs. 7.2 (5.4–12.5), p < 0.01].
Plasma endocan concentrations were statistically significantly higher in patients with poor evolution than in those with good evolution at T1, but not at T0 (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 Comparison of endocan concentrations at T0 and T1 in survivors and non-survivors and in patients with poor and good evolution Fig. 3 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for T1 endocan concentrations to predict poor evolution.
In the multivariate analysis, APACHE II score (but not endocan at T1) was retained as the best predictor of poor evolution (OR 1.149 [1.067–1.237], p < 0.01).
We plotted sensitivity and specificity on a ROC graph and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for the different variables to predict mortality or poor evolution.
We compared data from survivors and non-survivors and data from survivors with less than 10 days of ventilator support (good evolution) and those who died or needed more than 10 days of mechanical ventilation (poor evolution).
In the subgroups of septic and non-septic patients (n = 64 and n = 32, respectively), there were no significant differences in endocan concentrations at T0 or T1 in patients with poor evolution or good evolution (Additional file 1: Table S3).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com