Genetic Variants Are Not Associated with Outcome in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Results of the Genetic Substudy of the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) Trials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND: We evaluated the ability of 23 genetic variants to provide prognostic information in patients enrolled in the Genetic Substudy of the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trials. METHODS: Patients assigned to STICH Hypothesis 1 were randomized to medical therapy with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Those assigned to STICH Hypothesis 2 were randomized to CABG or CABG with left ventricular reconstruction. RESULTS: In patients assigned to STICH Hypothesis 2 (n = 714), no genetic variant met the prespecified Bonferroni-adjusted threshold for statistical significance (p < 0.002); however, several variants met nominal prognostic significance: variants in the β2-adrenergic receptor gene (β2-AR Gln27Glu) and in the A1-adenosine receptor gene (A1-717 T/G) were associated with an increased risk of a subject dying or being hospitalized for a cardiac problem (p = 0.027 and 0.031, respectively). These relationships remained nominally significant even after multivariable adjustment for prognostic clinical variables. However, none of the 23 genetic variants influenced all-cause mortality or the combination of death or cardiovascular hospitalization in the STICH Hypothesis 1 population (n = 532) by either univariate or multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: We were unable to identify the predictive genotypes in optimally treated patients in these two ischemic heart failure populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it