MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164518074 · doi:10.1001/archinte.168.15.1699

The Hemoglobin A1c Level as a Progressive Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Death, Hospitalization for Heart Failure, or Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

2008· article· en· W2164518074 on OpenAlexafffund
Hertzel C. Gerstein

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Internal Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureHazard ratioInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusConfidence intervalIncidence (geometry)Ejection fractionCardiologyRisk factorCandesartanBlood pressureEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A progressive relationship between hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) levels and cardiovascular (CV) events has been observed in persons with and without diabetes. To our knowledge, the nature of such a relationship in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF) has not been studied. METHODS: A total of 2412 participants (907 with prior diabetes) in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program with at least 1 HbA(1c) level were followed up for a median of 34 months. The incidence of the primary outcome (CV death or HF hospitalization), CV death, and total mortality was calculated according to eighths of the usual HbA(1c) level ranging from 5.8% or less to greater than 8.6%. Adjusted and unadjusted hazard ratios per 1% rise in HbA(1c) levels were also calculated. RESULTS: A total of 99.6% of eligible participants were followed up until they developed an outcome or the study finished. The risk of the primary composite outcome, CV death, hospitalization for worsening HF, and total mortality rose progressively with higher levels of usual HbA(1c) (P for trend <.001). After age and sex were adjusted for, hazards of these outcomes per 1% higher HbA(1c) level were 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI ], 1.20-1.31), 1.24 (95% CI, 1.17-1.31), 1.25 (95% CI, 1.19-1.31), and 1.22 (95% CI, 1.16-1.29), respectively. This relationship was evident in patients with and without diabetes and with reduced or preserved ejection fraction and persisted after adjustment for diabetes, other risk factors, and allocation to candesartan. CONCLUSION: In diabetic and nondiabetic patients with symptomatic chronic HF, the HbA(1c) level is an independent progressive risk factor for CV death, hospitalization for HF, and total mortality.

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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations213
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Internal MedicineSame topicErythropoietin and Anemia TreatmentFrench-language works237,207