Incremental Value of Implantable Cardiac Device Diagnostic Variables Over Clinical Parameters to Predict Mortality in Patients With Mild to Moderate Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Clinical prediction models provide suboptimal estimates of mortality in this population. We sought to determine the incremental value of implantable device diagnostics over clinical prediction models for mortality. Methods and Results RAFT (Resynchronization/Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial) patients with implanted devices capable of device diagnostic monitoring were included, and demographic and clinical parameters were used to compute Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) heart failure risk scores. Patients were classified according to MAGGIC score into low (0-16), intermediate (17-24), or high (>24) risk groups. Mortality was evaluated from 6 months postimplant in accordance with the RAFT protocol. In a subset of 1036 patients, multivariable analysis revealed that intermediate and high MAGGIC scores, fluid index, atrial fibrillation, and low activity flags were independent predictors of mortality. A device-integrated diagnostic parameter that included a fluid index flag and either a positive atrial fibrillation flag or a positive activity flag was able to significantly differentiate higher from lower risk for mortality in the intermediate MAGGIC cohort. The effect was more pronounced in the high-risk MAGGIC cohort, in which device-integrated diagnostic-positive patients had a shorter time to death than those who were device-integrated diagnostic negative. Conclusions Device diagnostics using a combination of fluid index trends, atrial fibrillation burden, and patient activity provide significant incremental prognostic value over clinical heart failure prediction scores in higher-risk patients. This suggests that combining clinical and device diagnostic parameters may lead to models with better predictive power. Whether this risk is modifiable with early medical intervention would warrant further studies. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00251251.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".