P3411Health-related quality of life is associated with all-cause mortality in patients with non-ischemic heart failure: results of the DANISH trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with heart failure (HF) may provide additional prognostic information beyond traditional objective risk factors, however previous studies have yielded inconsistent results Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess whether HRQoL was independently associated with all-cause mortality in the DANISH trial (Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Nonischemic Systolic Heart Failure). Methods: A total of 1,116 patients with non-ischemic systolic HF on guideline-recommended medical therapy were randomized in the DANISH trial to either ICD therapy or usual clinical care with a study period from 2008 to 2016. HRQoL was assessed using the validated disease-specific HRQoL survey Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) at randomization (high score indicating worse). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare hazard ratios (HR) of all-cause mortality according to MLHFQ above or below 45 at randomization to identify patients with poor HRQoL, as recommended by a recent meta-analysis. Models were adjusted for sex, age, NYHA class, log transformed NT-proBNP, LVEF, eGFR, ICD, CRT, HF medication and comorbidities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".