MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acute Heart Failure

2012· article· en· W2162012967 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justin A. Ezekowitz, Jia Hu, Diego Delgado, Adrian F. Hernandez, Padma Kaul, Rolland Leader, Guy Proulx, Sean Virani, Michel White, Shelley Zieroth, Christopher M. O’Connor, Cynthia M. Westerhout, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitute of Health EconomicsUniversity of ManitobaMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterquartile rangeMedicineHeart failureRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePopulationContext (archaeology)Ejection fractionAtrial fibrillationCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0020.003

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.263 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207