Clinical Factors Related to Morbidity and Mortality in High-Risk Heart Failure Patients: The GUIDE-IT Predictive Model and Risk Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most heart failure (HF) risk scores have been derived from cohorts of stable HF patients and may not incorporate up to date treatment regimens or deep phenotype characterization that change baseline risk over the short- and long-term follow-up period. We undertook the current analysis of participants in the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial to address these limitations. METHODS AND RESULTS: The GUIDE-IT study randomized 894 high-risk patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (≤ 40%) to biomarker-guided treatment strategy vs. usual care. We performed risk modelling using Cox proportional hazards models and analysed the relationship between 35 baseline clinical factors and the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization, the secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality, and the exploratory endpoint of 90-day HF hospitalization or death. Prognostic relationships for continuous variables were examined and key predictors were identified using a backward variable selection process. Predictive models and risk scores were developed. Over a median follow-up of 15 months, the cumulative number of HF hospitalizations and CV deaths was 328 out of 894 patients (Kaplan-Meier event rate 34.5% at 12 months). Frequency of all-cause deaths was 143 out of 894 patients (Kaplan-Meier event rate 12.2% at 12 months). Outcomes for the primary and secondary endpoints between strategy arms of the study were similar. The most important predictor that was present in all three models was the baseline natriuretic peptide level. Hispanic ethnicity, low sodium and high heart rate were present in two of the three models. Other important predictors included the presence or absence of a device, New York Heart Association class, HF duration, black race, co-morbidities (sleep apnoea, elevated creatinine, ischaemic heart disease), low blood pressure, and a high congestion score. CONCLUSION: Risk models using readily available clinical information are able to accurately predict short- and long-term CV events and may be useful in optimizing care and enriching patients for clinical trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID number NCT01685840.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".