Differential Impact of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction on Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) trials initiated in the last century highlighted many differences between men and women. Of particular concern was undertreatment of women compared with men, but much has changed during the past 20 years. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to identify these changes, which may give a new perspective on the management of, and outcomes in, women with HF. METHODS: The study analyzed 12,058 men and 3,357 women enrolled in 2 large HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) trials with near identical inclusion and exclusion criteria and the same principal outcomes. Outcomes were adjusted for other prognostic variables including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. RESULTS: Women were older and more often obese than men were, had slightly higher systolic blood pressure and heart rate, and were less likely to have most comorbidities, except hypertension. Women had more symptoms and signs (e.g., pedal edema 23.4% vs 19.9%; p < 0.0001) and worse quality of life-median Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score 71.3 (interquartile range: 53.4 to 86.5) versus 81.3 (interquartile range: 65.1 to 92.7; p < 0.0001)-despite similar left ventricular ejection fraction and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. However, women had lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.68; 95% confidence interval: 0.62 to 0.74; p < 0.001) and risk of HF hospitalization (hazard ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 0.89; p < 0.001). Diuretics and anticoagulants were underutilized in women. Device therapy was underused in both men and women, but more so in women (e.g., defibrillator 8.6% vs. 16.6%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although women with HFrEF live longer than men, their additional years of life are of poorer quality, with greater self-reported psychological and physical disability. The explanation for this different sex-related experience of HFrEF is unknown as is whether physicians recognize it. Women continue to receive suboptimal treatment, compared with men, with no obvious explanation for this shortfall.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".