Circulating Biomarker Responses to Medical Management vs. Mechanical Circulatory Support in Severe Inotrope-Dependent Acute Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe inotrope-dependent acute heart failure (AHF) is associated with poor clinical outcomes. There are currently no well-defined blood biomarkers of response to treatment that can guide management or identify recovery in this patient population. In the present study, we characterized the levels of novel and emerging circulating biomarkers of heart failure in patients with AHF over the first 30 days of medical management or mechanical circulatory support (MCS). We hypothesized a shared a plasma proteomic treatment response would be identifiable in both patient groups, representing reversal of the AHF phenotype. METHODS AND RESULTS: = 5), underwent semi-targeted and candidate biomarker analyses, using multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mass spectrometry, antibody arrays, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Differentially expressed proteins were identified using robust limma for MRM and antibody array data. Patients managed medically or with implantable MCS had a shared proteomic signature of six plasma proteins: circulating cardiotrophin 1, cardiac troponin T, clusterin, and dickopff 1 increased, while levels of C-reactive protein and growth differentiation factor 15 decreased in both groups over the 30 day time course. CONCLUSIONS: We have characterized the temporal proteomic signature of clinical recovery in AHF patients managed medically or with MCS, over the first 30 days of treatment. Changes in biomarker expression over the time course of treatment may provide a basis for understanding the biological basis of AHF, potentially identifying novel markers and pathophysiologic mechanisms of recovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".