Thiamine versus placebo in older heart failure patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled crossover feasibility trial (THIAMINE-HF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a major cardiovascular disease with increasing prevalence. Thiamine deficiency occurs in 33% of patients with HF. However, the effectiveness of thiamine supplementation in HF is not known. METHODS: In a placebo-controlled randomized two-period crossover feasibility trial, patients age ≥ 60 years with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, EF ≤ 45%) will be randomized to thiamine 500 mg oral capsule once daily or placebo for 3 months, then crossed over to the other intervention after a 6-week washout period. The primary outcome is recruitment rate. Secondary outcomes include feasibility and clinical measures. Feasibility outcomes include refusal rate, retention rate, and compliance rate. Secondary clinical outcomes include left ventricular ejection fraction, peak global longitudinal strain measured by echocardiography, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) quality of life score, and clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, and HF emergency room visits). DISCUSSION: Thiamine is potentially a safe and low-cost treatment for older patients with HFrEF. Results from this study will inform the feasibility of a large clinical trial with clinical endpoints. The findings will be published in a peer review journal and presented at a relevant conference. This study has received full approval from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (18-4537) and Health Canada (210603). This trial is funded by the Hamilton Health Sciences New Investigator Grant (15-387) and the McMaster/St. Peter's Hospital Chair of Aging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03228030 (ClinicalTrials.gov), registered July 24, 2017.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".