MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109467977 · doi:10.1681/asn.2006010063

Increase in Creatinine and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients with Systolic Dysfunction after Myocardial Infarction

2006· article· en· W2109467977 on OpenAlexaff
Powell Jose, Hicham Skali, Nagesh S. Anavekar, Charles Tomson, Harlan M. Krumholz, Jean L. Rouleau, Lemuel A. Moyé, Marc A. Pfeffer, Scott D. Solomon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyCreatinineRenal functionPopulationPlaceboHeart failureConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Baseline renal function is a potent independent risk factor for adverse events after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Worsening renal function (WRF) has been shown to influence outcomes in the heart failure population, but its impact on cardiovascular risk in the post-MI period has not been well defined. For assessment of the prognostic importance of WRF, 2231 patients who had left ventricular dysfunction and were enrolled in the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) trial were studied. Patients were randomly assigned between 3 and 16 d (average 11 d) after acute MI to receive captopril or placebo; those with a serum creatinine of >2.5 mg/dl were excluded from SAVE. WRF was defined as an increase in creatinine of >0.3 mg/dl measured from baseline to 2 wk after randomization. The predictive value of WRF on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality was examined during 42 mo of follow-up. Paired serum creatinine measurements at baseline and 2 wk were available in 1854 patients. WRF occurred in 223 (12.0%) patients and was a stronger predictor of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 2.02) than baseline creatinine (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.70). WRF also showed an increased risk for cardiovascular death (HR 1.62; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.30) and the composite end point (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.70). When stratified by treatment, 104 (5.7%) and 116 (6.4%) patients with WRF in the placebo and captopril groups had no significant association between treatment group and WRF (P = 0.38). The risk for death associated with WRF was HR 1.63 (95% CI 1.05 to 2.52) in the placebo group compared with HR 1.33 (95% CI 0.81 to 2.21) in the captopril group (P = 0.49 for interaction). WRF as early as 2 wk after MI was not uncommon (12.0%) and was associated with increased mortality in patients without renal dysfunction at baseline. Patients who received captopril did not demonstrate more WRF than patients who received placebo. Monitoring serum creatinine in patients during the first few weeks after MI may help to identify those who are at highest risk and guide effective long-term therapeutic choices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations193
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207