MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 3640: Diabetes Mellitus is Associated with Increased Risk of Fatal and Non-Fatal Cardiovascular Events in Heart Failure Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction - Findings From the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Systolic Function Trial

2007· article· en· W1033093734 on OpenAlexaff
Robert S. McKelvie, Michel Komajda, Barry M. Massie, John J.V. McMurray, Michael R. Zile, Mark Donovan, Agata Ptaszynska, Peter E. Carson

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureEjection fractionInternal medicineIrbesartanCardiologyHazard ratioDiabetes mellitusMyocardial infarctionUnstable anginaStroke (engine)Clinical endpointHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionAnginaRandomized controlled trialBlood pressureConfidence intervalEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM), present in about a quarter of heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), is associated with increased risk of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular (CV) events. Less is known about the prevalence and impact of DM in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF). The prevalence and effect of DM on clinical outcomes were examined in patients enrolled in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Systolic Function Trial (I-PRESERVE). Methods: The I-PRESERVE trial randomized 4128 HF-PEF patients (EF≥45%) to receive irbesartan or placebo. The primary outcome of time to all-cause mortality or CV hospitalization (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, worsening HF, atrial or ventricular arrhythmia or unstable angina) was compared between patients with and without DM over one year of follow-up. A combined HF endpoint (HF mortality and hospitalization) was also evaluated. Comparison of the outcomes between patients with and without DM was expressed as a hazard ratio (HR). The independent predictive role of DM was examined in a multivariable model (which included symptoms, signs, clinical history, CV examination, biochemical, and hematological findings). Results: In I-PRESERVE 27% had a history of DM at baseline. DM patients more often had a body mass index ≥30 (51% vs 38%), history of stroke (12% vs 9%), history of MI (28% vs 22%), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73m 2 (34% vs 29%), and pulmonary congestion on chest x-ray (46% vs 38%). In patients with DM, 17% and 11% had primary and HF events, respectively within 1 year; for patients without DM, 11% and 6% had primary and HF events. In a multivariate analysis DM remained a significant predictor of primary events (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.22, 1.79) or HF events (HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.32, 2.12). Conclusions: The prevalence of DM in HF-PEF is similar to that reported in HF-REF. HF-PEF patients with DM have a significantly worse outcome than those without DM and this increased risk is independent of other factors associated with a worse prognosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→