MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793205952 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.12244

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists for Heart Failure: A Real-Life Observational Study

2018· article· en· W2793205952 on OpenAlex
Noemi Bruno, Gianfranco Sinagra, Stefania Paolillo, Alice Bonomi, Ugo Corrà, Massimo Piepoli, Fabrizio Veglia, Elisabetta Salvioni, Rocco Lagioia, Marco Metra, Giuseppe Limongelli, Gaia Cattadori, Angela Beatrice Scardovi, Valentina Carubelli, Domenico Scrutino, Roberto Badagliacca, Marco Guazzi, Rosa Raimondo, Piero Gentile, Damiano Magrì, Michele Correale, Gianfranco Parati, Federica Re, Mariantonietta Cicoira, Maria Frigerio, Maurizio Bussotti, Carlo Vignati, Fabrizio Oliva, Alessandro Mezzani, Giuseppe Vergaro, Andrea Di Lenarda, Claudio Passino, Susanna Sciomer, Giuseppe Pacileo, Roberto Ricci, Mauro Contini, Anna Apostolo, Pietro Palermo, Massimo Mapelli, Cosimo Carriere, Francesco Clemenza, Simone Binno, Romualdo Belardinelli, Carlo Lombardi, Pasquale Perrone Filardi, Michele Emdin, Piergiuseppe Agostoni

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicinePropensity score matchingHeart transplantationMineralocorticoid receptorRenal functionPopulationTransplantationClinical endpointKidney diseaseKidney transplantationRandomized controlled trialAldosterone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been demonstrated to improve outcomes in reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF) patients. However, MRAs added to conventional treatment may lead to worsening of renal function and hyperkalaemia. We investigated, in a population-based analysis, the long-term effects of MRA treatment in HFrEF patients. Methods and results We analysed data of 6046 patients included in the Metabolic Exercise Cardiac Kidney Index score dataset. Analysis was performed in patients treated (n = 3163) and not treated (n = 2883) with MRA. The study endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation. Ten years' survival was analysed through Kaplan–Meier, compared by log-rank test and propensity score matching. At 10 years' follow-up, the MRA-untreated group had a significantly lower number of events than the MRA-treated group (P < 0.001). MRA-treated patients had more severe heart failure (higher New York Heart Association class and lower left ventricular ejection fraction, kidney function, and peak VO2). At a propensity-score-matching analysis performed on 1587 patients, MRA-treated and MRA-untreated patients showed similar study endpoint values. Conclusions In conclusion, MRA treatment does not affect the composite of cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation in a real-life setting. A meticulous patient follow-up, as performed in trials, is likely needed to match the positive MRA-related benefits observed in clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it