MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588862621 · doi:10.1186/1532-429x-17-s1-o7

Effect of purified omega-3 fatty acids on reducing left ventricular remodeling after acute myocardial infarction (OMEGA-REMODEL study): a double-blind randomized clinical trial)

2015· article· en· W1588862621 on OpenAlexaff
Bobby Heydari, Siddique Abbasi, Ravi V. Shah, Shuaib Abdullah, Jiazuo H. Feng, William S. Harris, Evan Appelbaum, Udo Hoffmann, Michael L. Steigner, Ron Blankstein, Elliott Antman, Michael Jerosch‐Herold, Raymond Y. Kwong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAngiologyOmegaMyocardial infarctionRandomized controlled trialCardiologyInternal medicineVentricular remodelingClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute myocardial infarction (MI) remains a leading cause of patient death and morbidity. Prognosis following MI has been shown to be strongly associated with small changes in left ventricular remodeling. Omega-3 fatty acid (PUFAs) supplementation may have a number of beneficial pleiotropic effects, including enhancement of myocardial relaxation and reduction of vascular tone. One prospective, randomized trial demonstrated significant survival benefit for PUFAs following acute MI. However, the mechanism and potential myocardial changes during the convalescent phase post MI from PUFAs have not been well described. The OMEGA-REMODEL study was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled trial of PUFA supplementation post acute MI. A total of 358 patients were randomized to study therapy with PUFAs (n=180) or matching placebo (n=178) and underwent baseline assessment by CMR 4-28 days following MI, with follow-up after 6 months of randomized therapy. The primary endpoint was changes in left ventricular end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area (LVESVI). Secondary outcomes included a) change in total infarct size, b) expansion of MECVF within noninfarcted myocardium, and c) changes in systemic biomarkers. Baseline demographics for the entire cohort and both treatment arms are shown in Table 1. CMR characteristics, PUFAs levels, and biomarkers for baseline and 6-month post-treatment values of each treatment arm are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1 . There were no significant differences for any ventricular parameters, infarct size or MECVF at baseline. After 6 months of therapy, follow-up CMR revealed a significant difference for percent change of LVESVI (-5.4±16.6 PUFAs versus 0.75±21.0 Placebo, p=0.01) and MECVF (-1.3±14.9 PUFAs versus 3.8±18.0 Placebo, p=<0.05) between the treatment arms. In addition, the inflammatory biomarkers, hsCRP and myeloperoxidase, were substantially reduced in the PUFAs treated arm as compared with the placebo arm (-98.2±243.6% versus -30.5±221.5% p<0.01, and -0.8±6.7 versus +0.8±5.3 p=<0.05, respectively). Finally, the percent reduction in ST2 after 6 months, a biomarker of myocardial fibrosis, was significantly greater in the PUFAs treated arm (-1.35±8.0 versus +0.92±7.5, p=0.03). Adjusted multivariable analysis demonstrated an independent association for change in PUFAs levels with adverse LV remodeling. Baseline demographics Baseline and 6-month post treatment results The results of this study demonstrated a significant reduction in LVESVI and MECVF for patients treated with high-dose PUFAs as compared to placebo. Further assessment of systemic biomarkers demonstrated a substantial reduction in biomarkers of inflammation, and fibrosis for the PUFAs treated arm. These findings represent the first description of the effect of PUFAs on myocardial tissue phenotypes during the convalescent phase post MI and may suggest potentially important pathophysiological pathways for their pleiotropic effects.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207