Rheumatic heart disease and risk of incident heart failure among community-dwelling older adults: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the association of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) with incident heart failure (HF) among older adults. DESIGN: Cardiovascular Health Study, a prospective cohort study. METHODS: Of the 4,751 community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years, free of prevalent HF at baseline, 140 had RHD, defined as self-reported physician-diagnosed RHD along with echocardiographic evidence of left-sided valvular disease. Propensity scores for RHD, estimated for each of the 4,751 participants, were used to assemble a cohort of 720, in which 124 and 596 participants with and without RHD, respectively, were balanced on 62 baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Incident HF developed in 33% and 22% of matched participants with and without RHD, respectively, during 13 years of follow-up (hazard ratio when RHD was compared to no-RHD 1.60; 95% confidence interval 1.13-2.28; P = 0.008). Pre-match unadjusted, multivariable-adjusted, and propensity-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for RHD-associated incident heart failure were 2.04 (1.54-2.71; P < 0.001), 1.32 (1.02-1.70; P = 0.034), and 1.55 (1.14-2.11; P = 0.005), respectively. RHD was not associated with all-cause mortality (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.82-1.45; P = 0.568). CONCLUSION: RHD is an independent risk factor for incident HF among community-dwelling older adults free of HF, but has no association with mortality.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".