Trends in Noncardiovascular Comorbidities Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The increase in medical complexity among patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) may be reflected by an increase in concomitant noncardiovascular comorbidities. Among patients hospitalized with HF, the temporal trends in the prevalence of noncardiovascular comorbidities have not been well described. Methods and Results: We used data from 207 984 patients in the Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure registry (from 2005 to 2014) to evaluate the prevalence and trends of noncardiovascular comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder/asthma, anemia, diabetes mellitus, obesity [body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 ], and renal impairment) among patients hospitalized with HF. Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years were used to assess 30-day mortality. The prevalence of 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 noncardiovascular comorbidities was 18%, 30%, 27%, 25%, respectively. From 2005 to 2014, there was a decline in patients with 0 noncardiovascular comorbidities (22%–16%; P <0.0001) and an increase in patients with ≥3 noncardiovascular comorbidities (18%–29%; P <0.0001). Among Medicare beneficiaries, there was an increased 30-day adjusted mortality risk among patients with 1 noncardiovascular comorbidity (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.09–1.24; P <0.0001), 2 noncardiovascular comorbidities (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–1.44; P <0.0001), and ≥3 noncardiovascular comorbidities (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.51–1.75; P <0.0001). Similar trends were seen for in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: Patients admitted in hospital for HF have an increasing number of noncardiovascular comorbidities over time, which are associated with worse outcomes. Strategies addressing the growing burden of noncardiovascular comorbidities may represent an avenue to improve outcomes and should be included in the delivery of in-hospital HF care.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".