Predictors of Short-Term Clinical Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure and QRS prolongation but there is uncertainty about which patient characteristics predict short-term clinical response. METHODS AND RESULTS: In an individual patient meta-analysis of three double-blind, randomized trials, clinical composite score (CCS) at 6 months was compared in patients assigned to CRT programmed on or off. Treatment-covariate interactions were assessed to measure likelihood of improved CCS at 6 months. MIRACLE, MIRACLE ICD, and REVERSE trials contributed data for this analysis (n = 1591). Multivariable modelling identified QRS duration and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as predictors of CRT clinical response (P < 0.05). The odds ratio for a better CCS at 6 months increased by 3.7% for every 1% decrease in LVEF for patients assigned to CRT-on compared to CRT-off, and was greatest when QRS duration was between 160 and 180 ms. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic chronic heart failure patients (NYHA class II-IV), longer QRS duration and lower LVEF independently predict early clinical response to CRT.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".