The Role of B Vitamins in the Management of Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in industrialized countries, creating a significant burden on both the healthcare system and quality of life. Research efforts continue to explore new pharmaceutical or surgically based approaches to HF management, but the role of nutrition as an adjunct therapy has been largely ignored. Elderly age, anorexia, malabsorption, premature satiety, and disease severity are among the factors identified as contributing to reduced nutrient intakes in patients with HF. These factors suggest that patients with HF are at increased risk of multiple-nutrient deficiencies, including B vitamins. B vitamins may be of particular therapeutic interest because of their key roles as cofactors in energy-producing pathways. Recently, impaired stores of high-energy compounds have been linked with myocardial dysfunction and prognosis in patients with HF. Therefore, deficiencies of B vitamins might contribute to reduced energy stores and disease progression. This review summarizes the existing literature both with respect to the prevalence of B vitamin deficiency as well as evidence from supplementation trials in patients with HF. The findings suggest that most of the literature in this area has focused on thiamin deficiency in patients with HF, whereas other B vitamins remain largely unstudied. Although few sporadic trials suggest a role for B vitamins in the management of HF, none are conclusive. Therefore, there is a need for larger, more robust trials to assist in defining the B vitamin requirements as well as the impact of supplementation on both morbidity and mortality in patients with HF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".