MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608429456 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.19

The Relationship between Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Mortality in Patients with Acute Heart Failure: Insights from the ASCEND-HF Trial

2013· article· en· W1608429456 on OpenAlexaff
Mustafa Toma, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Jeffrey A. Bakal, Christopher M. O’Connor, Adrian F. Hernandez, Muhammad Sardar, Ronald Zolty, Barry M. Massie, Karl Swedberg, Paul W. Armstrong, Randall C. Starling

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCanadian VIGOUR CentreSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEjection fractionMedicineHazard ratioNesiritideHeart failureInternal medicineAcute decompensated heart failureCardiologyConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelNatriuretic peptide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality but the relationship between LVEF and outcomes is unclear. We explored the association between LVEF and 30 and 180 day mortality in 7007 ADHF patients enrolled in the Acute Studies of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We explored the association between LVEF and 30 and 180 day mortality in 7007 ADHF patients enrolled in the Acute Studies of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial. LVEF was analysed both as a continuous variable and according to three categories: < 40% (LowEF), 40-50% [intermediate EF (IntEF)], and > 50% [preserved ejection fraction (PresEF)]. Of the patients in the trial, 4474 (78.7%) had LowEF, 674 (11.9%) had IntEF, and 539 (9.5%) had PresEF. The unadjusted 30 and 180 day mortality was similar for LowEF (3.7%, 12.3%), IntEF (3.4%, 13.1%), and PresEF (4.3%, 14.1%), respectively (P > 0.05). After multivariable adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for 180 day mortality remained similar for the LowEF [HR 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.24; P = 0.77] and IntEF (0.91, 95% CI 0.66-1.3; P = 0.58) compared to PresEF patients. By contrast, when LVEF was evaluated as a continuous measure, it exhibited a U-shaped pattern with mortality. After matching for age and sex, the mortality risk attributed to LVEF was attenuated, as the LVEF increased as a continuous variable over 35%. However, in patients with EF < 35%, the mortality risk continue to increase as the LVEF declined. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ADHF, the unadjusted mortality rates are similar across LVEF strata. However, after accounting for key patient variables, the mortality risk increases as EF falls below 35%. These data will be useful in planning future studies of ADHF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00475852.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations69
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207