Frank Ruschitzka MD FESC FRCP Shares Some Thoughts on the Future Direction of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The left atrial appendage (LAA) produces natriuretic peptides and its removal or occlusion might increase the risk of heart failure (HF). We aimed to investigate the incidence of HF after LAA occlusion or removal (LAAO) in the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study (LAAOS III). METHODS AND RESULTS: -VASc score ≥2, who were having cardiac surgery for another indication, were randomized to undergo surgical LAAO or not. We compared the composite outcome of HF-related hospitalizations and HF death between the two groups. HF assessment required clinical and radiographic evidence of HF. Analyses included a landmark analysis before and after 30 days and subgroups. Mean age was 71.2 years, 67.5% were male and 57.0% had prior HF. Over a mean follow-up of 3.8 years, 396 (8.3%) patients met the composite HF outcome: 209 (8.8%) with LAAO (n = 2379) and 187 (7.8%) without LAAO (n = 2391) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.37, p = 0.25). There was no difference between the two groups in the first 30 days (1.6% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.12) and thereafter (7.6% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.57). Subgroups based on age, sex, body mass index, AF type, prior HF, cardiac rhythm or left ventricular ejection fraction showed consistent results. There was no difference in HF outcomes with LAAO between the cut-and-sew (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.23, p = 0.62) versus other closure methods (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77-1.41, p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Left atrial appendage occlusion or removal at the time of cardiac surgery does not appear to alter the risk of HF-related hospitalization or death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01561651.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".