Metabolic manipulation in chronic heart failure: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in society. Current medical therapy centres on neurohormonal modulation with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and β-blockers. There is growing evidence for the use of metabolic manipulating agents as adjunctive therapy in patients with heart failure. We aim to determine the effect of perhexiline on cardiac energetics and alterations in substrate utilisation in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy. METHODS: A multi-centre, prospective, randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 50 subjects with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy recruited from University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust. Baseline investigations include magnetic resonance spectroscopy to assess cardiac energetic status, echocardiography to assess left ventricular function and assessment of symptomatic status. Subjects are then randomised to receive 200 mg perhexiline maleate or placebo daily for 4 weeks with serum drug level monitoring. All baseline investigations will be repeated at the end of the treatment period. A subgroup of patients will undergo invasive investigations with right and left heart catheterisation to calculate respiratory quotient, and mechanical efficiency. The primary endpoint is an improvement in the phosphocreatine to adenosine triphosphate ratio at 4 weeks. Secondary end points are: i) respiratory quotient; ii) mechanical efficiency; iii) change in left ventricular (LV) function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00841139 ISRCTN: ISRCTN72887836.
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 | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.013 |
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".