Design and Preliminary Results of the Heart Function Assessment Registry Trial in Saudi Arabia (HEARTS) in Patients with Acute and Chronic Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The heart function assessment registry trial in Saudi Arabia (HEARTS) is the first multicentre national quality improvement initiative in the Arab population to study the clinical features, management, and outcomes of inpatients admitted with acute heart failure (AHF) and outpatients with high-risk chronic heart failure (HCHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective pilot phase for the registry that included consecutive patients with AHF and HCHF in five tertiary care hospitals in Saudi Arabia between October 2009 and December 2010. The study enrolled 1090 patients, 722 (66.2%) of whom were admitted with AHF and 368 (33.8%) had HCHF. The mean age ± SD of AHF patients was 60.6 ± 15.3 years; 65.2% were men, 55.3% were de novo heart failure, 60.7% had diabetes mellitus, 72.5% had moderate or severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, and 51.5% had coronary artery disease as the main aetiology. More than 80% of AHF and HCHF patients were treated with beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers. Patients with HCHF had a similar clinical profile, but only one-third had implantable cardioverter defibrillators. In-hospital mortality was 5.3% for AHF patients and 7.5% at 30 days after hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: Heart failure patients in Saudi Arabia present at a relatively younger age, have a much higher rate of diabetes mellitus, and predominantly have LV systolic dysfunction, which is mainly ischaemic in origin, compared with patients in developed countries. The preliminary results of the study show potential targets for improvement in care.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".