Association with Outcomes and Response to Treatment of Trimethylamine N-Oxide in Heart Failure: Results from BIOSTAT-CHF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Association of elevated circulating levels of trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has been described. However, response of TMAO levels to treatment and medications has not been investigated. Therefore, we investigated whether TMAO levels are responsive to guideline-recommended treatment and medications, and further reflect changes in outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: TMAO levels were investigated in the systems BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF), which addressed response to guideline-recommended pharmacological treatment. TMAO levels in 2234 patients with new-onset or progressively worsening HF showed strong associations with adverse events (mortality and/or rehospitalisation) at 1, 2 and 3 years [hazard ratio (HR) 1.37-1.51, P ≤ 0.019). Analysis of 972 patients with plasma available at both enrolment and follow-up visit showed reductions of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels with guideline-based treatment (P < 0.001), but not for TMAO levels. Moreover, patients with higher TMAO levels than median before and after treatment showed increased association with adverse outcomes [HR 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43-3.43, P < 0.001] compared to patients with lower than median levels either before or after treatment (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63-2.04, P = 0.684 and HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.64-2.03, P = 0.662, respectively). CONCLUSION: TMAO levels were associated with adverse outcomes (mortality and/or rehospitalisation) in BIOSTAT-CHF, and did not respond to guideline-based pharmacological treatment in contrast to BNP levels which did as expected. Lower TMAO levels were associated with favourable outcome regardless of treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".