MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1860668365 · doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcv087

Prognostic significance of anaemia in patients with heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction: results from the MAGGIC individual patient data meta-analysis

2015· review· en· W1860668365 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueQJM · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAlberta InnovatesUniversity of AucklandUniversity of GlasgowScottish Funding Council
KeywordsEjection fractionMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineHazard ratioProportional hazards modelMeta-analysisCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is common among patients with heart failure (HF) and is an important prognostic marker. AIM: We sought to determine the prognostic importance of anaemia in a large multinational pooled dataset of prospectively enrolled HF patients, with the specific aim to determine the prognostic role of anaemia in HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HF-PEF and HF-REF, respectively). DESIGN: Individual person data meta-analysis. METHODS: Patients with haemoglobin (Hb) data from the MAGGIC dataset were used. Anaemia was defined as Hb < 120 g/l in women and <130 g/l in men. HF-PEF was defined as EF ≥ 50%; HF-REF was EF < 50%. Cox proportional hazard modelling, with adjustment for clinically relevant variables, was undertaken to investigate factors associated with 3-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Thirteen thousand two hundred and ninety-five patients with HF from 19 studies (9887 with HF-REF and 3408 with HF-PEF). The prevalence of anaemia was similar among those with HF-REF and HF-PEF (42.8 and 41.6% respectively). Compared with patients with normal Hb values, those with anaemia were older, were more likely to have diabetes, ischaemic aetiology, New York Heart Association class IV symptoms, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and were more likely to be taking diuretic and less likely to be taking a beta-blocker. Patients with anaemia had higher all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-1.51), independent of EF group: aHR 1.67 (1.39-1.99) in HF-PEF and aHR 2.49 (2.13-2.90) in HF-REF. CONCLUSIONS: Anaemia is an adverse prognostic factor in HF irrespective of EF. The prognostic importance of anaemia was greatest in patients with HF-REF.

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.

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)0.000
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.201 · 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