MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897064634 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.1323

Heart Failure in the Outpatient Versus Inpatient Setting: Findings from the BIOSTAT-CHF Study

2018· article· en· W2897064634 on OpenAlexaff
João Pedro Ferreira, Marco Metra, Ify Mordi, John Gregson, Jozine M. ter Maaten, Jasper Tromp, Stefan D. Anker, Kenneth Dickstein, Hans L. Hillege, Leong L. Ng, Dirk J. van Veldhuisen, Chim C. Lang, Adriaan A. Voors, Faı̈ez Zannad

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureHazard ratioInternal medicineRenal functionConfidence intervalAmbulatoryDiabetes mellitusCardiologyIncidence (geometry)Angiotensin-converting enzymeBlood pressureEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) require additive therapies and have a poor prognosis. However, patient characteristics and clinical outcome between HF patients treated in the outpatient setting vs. those who are hospitalized remain scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: The BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF) included 2516 patients with symptoms and/or signs of HF: 1694 as inpatients and 822 as outpatients. Compared to ambulatory HF patients, inpatients had higher heart rate, urea, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, lower blood pressure, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, sodium, potassium, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, had more often peripheral oedema, diabetes, anaemia, and were less often treated with beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi). Outpatients had a more frequent history of HF hospitalization and received more frequently beta-blockers and/or ACEi/angiotensin receptor blockers up-titrated to target doses (P < 0.001). Inpatients had higher rates of the primary outcome of death or HF hospitalization: incidence rate per 100 person-years of 33.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.1-35.9] for inpatients vs. 18.5 (95% CI 16.4-21.0) for outpatients; adjusted hazard ratio 1.24 (95% CI 1.07-1.43). Subdividing patients into low, intermediate and high-risk categories, the primary outcome event rates were 14.3 (95% CI 12.3-16.7), 36.6 (95% CI 32.2-41.5), and 71.3 (95% CI 64.4-79.0) for inpatients vs. 8.4 (95% CI 6.6-10.6), 29.8 (95% CI 24.5-36.2), and 43.3 (95% CI 34.7-54.0) for outpatients, respectively. These findings were externally replicated. CONCLUSIONS: Marked differences were observed between inpatients and outpatients with HF. Overall, inpatients were sicker and had higher event rates. However, a substantial proportion of outpatients had similar or higher event rates compared to inpatients. These findings suggest that HF outpatients also have poor prognosis and may be the focus of future 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207