Proteomic Biomarkers of Recovered Heart Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Chronic heart failure is a costly epidemic that affects up to 2% of people in developed countries. The purpose of this study was to discover novel blood proteomic biomarker signatures of recovered heart function that could lead to more effective heart failure patient management by both primary care and specialty physicians. METHODS AND RESULTS: The discovery cohort included 41 heart transplant patients and 20 healthy individuals. Plasma levels of 138 proteins were detected in at least 75% of these subjects by iTRAQ mass spectrometry. Eighteen proteins were identified that had (i) differential levels between pre-transplant patients with end-stage heart failure and healthy individuals; and (ii) levels that returned to normal by 1 month post-transplant in patients with stable heart function after transplantation. Seventeen of the 18 markers were validated by multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry in a cohort of 39 heart failure patients treated with drug therapy, of which 30 had recovered heart function and 9 had not. This 17-protein biomarker panel had 93% sensitivity and 89% specificity, while the RAMP® NT-proBNP assay had the same specificity but 80% sensitivity. Performance further improved when the panel was combined with NT-proBNP, yielding a net reclassification index relative to NT-proBNP of 0.28. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified potential blood biomarkers of recovered heart function by harnessing data from transplant patients. These biomarkers can lead to the development of an inexpensive protein-based blood test that could be used by physicians to monitor response to therapy in heart failure, resulting in more personalized, front-line heart failure patient management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".