Importance of Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease in the Prognosis of Patients With Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the prognostic significance of nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with heart failure (HF), as a distinct category apart from those with normal coronary arteries. BACKGROUND: Individuals with HF are often dichotomized into ischemic versus nonischemic categories according to the underlying etiology. This binary classification creates a heterogeneous group, combining individuals with nonobstructive CAD with those with normal coronary arteries under the nonischemic label. METHODS: A cohort of individuals with HF and reduced ejection fraction undergoing invasive coronary angiography was examined and linked to administrative databases for outcomes evaluation. Patients were divided into those with normal coronary arteries, nonobstructive disease, and obstructive disease. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 12,814 individuals, 2,656 (20.7%) had normal coronary arteries, 2,254 (17.6%) had nonobstructive CAD, and 7,904 (61.7%) had obstructive CAD. The risk of the primary outcome was increased in the nonobstructive group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.32; p = 0.01) relative to those with normal coronary arteries. Nonobstructive CAD was associated with an increased hazard of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.27 to 2.62; p = 0.001) and death of any cause (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.33; p = 0.005). There were no significant differences in the rate of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or HF hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among HF patients with reduced ejection fraction, the presence of nonobstructive CAD was independently associated with an increased hazard of the primary composite outcome and death of any cause.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".