Design and Rationale of the Fontan Udenafil Exercise Longitudinal (FUEL) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Fontan operation creates a circulation characterized by elevated central venous pressure and low cardiac output. Over time, these characteristics result in a predictable and persistent decline in exercise performance that is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality. A medical therapy that targets the abnormalities of the Fontan circulation might, therefore, be associated with improved outcomes. Udenafil, a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, has undergone phase I/II testing in adolescents who have had the Fontan operation and has been shown to be safe and well tolerated in the short term. However, there are no data regarding the long-term efficacy of udenafil in this population. The Fontan Udenafil Exercise Longitudinal (FUEL) Trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial being conducted by the Pediatric Heart Network in collaboration with Mezzion Pharma Co, Ltd. This trial is designed to test the hypothesis that treatment with udenafil will lead to an improvement in exercise capacity in adolescents who have undergone the Fontan operation. A safety extension trial, the FUEL Open-Label Extension Trial (FUEL OLE), offers the opportunity for all FUEL subjects to obtain open-label udenafil for an additional 12 months following completion of FUEL, and evaluates the long-term safety and tolerability of this medication. This manuscript describes the rationale and study design for FUEL and FUEL OLE. Together, these trials provide an opportunity to better understand the role of medical management in the care of those who have undergone the Fontan operation.
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 | 0.029 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.009 |
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".