Acute Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are limited by their generalizability to the broader nontrial population. To provide a context for Acute Study of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial, we designed a complementary registry to characterize clinical characteristics, practice patterns, and in-hospital outcomes of acute heart failure patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eligible patients for the registry included those with a principal diagnosis of acute heart failure (ICD-9-CM 402 and 428; ICD-10 I50.x, I11.0, I13.0, I13.2) from 8 sites participating in ASCEND-HF (n=697 patients, 2007-2010). Baseline characteristics, treatments, and hospital outcomes from the registy were compared with ASCEND-HF RCT patients from 31 Canadian sites (n=465, 2007-2010). Patients in the registry were older, more likely to be female, and have chronic respiratory disease, less likely to have diabetes mellitus: they had a similar incidence of ischemic HF, atrial fibrillation, and similar B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Registry patients had higher systolic blood pressure (registry: median 132 mm Hg [interquartile range 115-151 mm Hg]; RCT: median 120 mm Hg [interquartile range 110-135 mm Hg]) and ejection fraction (registry: median 40% [interquartile range 27-58%]; RCT: median 29% [interquartile range 20-40 mm Hg]) than RCT patients. Registry patients presented more often via ambulance and had a similar total length of stay as RCT patients. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the registry compared with the RCT patients (9.3% versus 1.3%,P<0.001), and this remained after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio 6.6, 95% CI 2.6-16.8, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients enrolled in a large RCT of acute heart failure differed significantly based on clinical characteristics, treatments, and inpatient outcomes from contemporaneous patients participating in a registry. These results highlight the need for context of RCTs to evaluate generalizability of results and especially the need to improve clinical outcomes in acute heart failure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00475852.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.007 |
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".