A Systems BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure: Rationale, Design, and Baseline Characteristics of BIOSTAT-CHF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Despite major improvements in pharmacological and device treatments, heart failure remains a syndrome with high morbidity and mortality, poor quality of life, and high health-care costs. Given the extensive heterogeneity among patients with heart failure, substantial differences in the response to therapy can be expected. We hypothesize that individualized therapy is an essential next step to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure. METHODS: The BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF) included 2516 patients with worsening signs and/or symptoms of heart failure from 11 European countries, who were considered to be on suboptimal medical treatment. Another 1738 patients from Scotland were included in a validation cohort. Overall, both patient cohorts were well matched. The majority of patients were hospitalized for acute heart failure, and the remainder presented with worsening signs and/or symptoms of heart failure at outpatient clinics. Approximately half of the patients were in New York Heart Association class III, and 7% vs 34% of patients of the index vs validation cohort had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. According to study design, all patients used diuretics, but owing to the inclusion criteria of both cohorts, patients were not on optimal, evidence-based medical therapy. In the follow-up phase, uptitration to guideline-recommended doses was encouraged. CONCLUSION: By using a novel systems biology approach, incorporating demographics, biomarkers, genome-wide analysis, and proteomics, a model that predicts response to therapy will be developed, which should be instrumental in developing alternative therapies for patients with suboptimal response to currently recommended therapies and thus further improve care for patients with heart failure.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".