Effect of Liraglutide, a Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Analogue, on Left Ventricular Function in Stable Chronic Heart Failure Patients with and Without Diabetes (LIVE)—a Multicentre, Double-Blind, Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the effect of the glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue liraglutide on left ventricular function in chronic heart failure patients with and without type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: LIVE was an investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled multicentre trial. Patients (n = 241) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤45%) were recruited (February 2012 to August 2015). Patients were clinically stable and on optimal heart failure treatment. Intervention was liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily or matching placebo for 24 weeks. The LVEF was similar at baseline in the liraglutide and the placebo group (33.7 ± 7.6% vs. 35.4 ± 9.4%). Change in LVEF did not differ between the liraglutide and the placebo group; mean difference (95% confidence interval) was -0.8% (-2.1, 0.5; P = 0.24). Heart rate increased with liraglutide [mean difference: 7 b.p.m. (5, 9), P < 0.0001]. Serious cardiac events were seen in 12 (10%) patients treated with liraglutide compared with 3 (3%) patients in the placebo group (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Liraglutide did not affect left ventricular systolic function compared with placebo in stable chronic heart failure patients with and without diabetes. Treatment with liraglutide was associated with an increase in heart rate and more serious cardiac adverse events, and this raises some concern with respect to the use of liraglutide in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left ventricular function. More data on the safety of liraglutide in different subgroups of heart failure patients are needed.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it