The prognostic significance of frailty compared to peak oxygen consumption and B‐type natriuretic peptide in patients with advanced heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frailty assessment has become an integral part of the evaluation of potential candidates for heart transplantation and ventricular assist device (HTx/VAD). The impact of frailty, as a heart failure risk factor or to identify those who will derive the greatest benefit with HTx/VAD remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the independent prognostic relevance of frailty assessment from peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2) or B‐type natriuretic peptide (BNP) on mortality in patients referred for advanced heart failure therapies. Frailty was measured using modified Fried frailty criteria. In 201 consecutive patients, during a median follow‐up of 17.5 months (IQR 11‐29.2), there were 25 (12.4%) deaths. One‐year survival was 100%, 94%, and 78% in nonfrail, prefrail, and frail patients, respectively (log rank P = .0001). Frailty was associated with a twofold increase risk of death (HR 2.01, P < .0001, 95% CI 1.42‐2.84). When adjusted for BNP or peak VO2, frailty was not associated with a significant risk of all‐cause death. However, when peak VO2 is stratified into two categories (≥12 mL/kg/min vs <12 mL/kg/min), frailty was associated with increased mortality in patients with a lower peak VO2 (HR 1.72, P = .006).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".