Assessment of Long-Term Effects of Irbesartan on Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction as Measured by the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function (I-PRESERVE) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) was used in a large, multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to measure adverse effects of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF) on patients' lives and the effects of irbesartan. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic HF-PEF were randomly assigned to irbesartan (up to 300 mg daily) or placebo. The MLHFQ was administered at baseline (n=3605), month 6 (n=3137), month 14 (n=2904), and the end of study (median, 56 months, n=2205). Baseline MLHFQ scores of 43±21 indicated that HF-PEF had a substantial adverse effects. Estimated retest reliability was 0.80. Baseline MLHFQ scores were associated with other measures of the severity of heart failure including symptoms, signs of congestion, cardiac structure, and time to hospitalizations or deaths attributed to heart failure. Slight improvement in shortness of breath or fatigue was associated with significant improvement in MLHFQ scores (-5.9 and -5.0, P<0.0001). Compared with placebo, further improvement in MLHFQ scores was not observed with irbesartan after 6 months (mean adjusted difference, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, -0.8 to 1.7), 14 months (0.5; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 1.8), or the end of study (2.0; 95% confidence interval, -4.1 to 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The MLHFQ scores are a reliable, valid, and sensitive measure of the adverse impact of HF-PEF on patients' lives. Irbesartan did not substantially improve MLHFQ scores during a long period of follow-up. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00095238.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".