MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Results of the FUEL Trial

2019· article· en· W2983014462 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicinePharmacotherapyIntensive care medicineClinical trialVascular resistanceCirculation (fluid dynamics)Fontan procedureCardiologyInternal medicineHemodynamicsHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Fontan operation creates a total cavopulmonary connection, a circulation in which the importance of pulmonary vascular resistance is magnified. Over time, this circulation leads to deterioration of cardiovascular efficiency associated with a decline in exercise performance. Rigorous clinical trials aimed at improving physiology and guiding pharmacotherapy are lacking. Methods: The FUEL trial (Fontan Udenafil Exercise Longitudinal) was a phase III clinical trial conducted at 30 centers. Participants were randomly assigned udenafil, 87.5 mg twice daily, or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in oxygen consumption at peak exercise. Secondary outcomes included between-group differences in changes in submaximal exercise at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold, the myocardial performance index, the natural log of the reactive hyperemia index, and serum brain-type natriuretic peptide. Results: Between 2017 and 2019, 30 clinical sites in North America and the Republic of Korea randomly assigned 400 participants with Fontan physiology. The mean age at randomization was 15.5±2 years; 60% of participants were male, and 81% were white. All 400 participants were included in the primary analysis with imputation of the 26-week end point for 21 participants with missing data (11 randomly assigned to udenafil and 10 to placebo). Among randomly assigned participants, peak oxygen consumption increased by 44±245 mL/min (2.8%) in the udenafil group and declined by 3.7±228 mL/min (–0.2%) in the placebo group ( P =0.071). Analysis at ventilatory anaerobic threshold demonstrated improvements in the udenafil group versus the placebo group in oxygen consumption (+33±185 [3.2%] versus –9±193 [–0.9%] mL/min, P =0.012), ventilatory equivalents of carbon dioxide (–0.8 versus –0.06, P =0.014), and work rate (+3.8 versus +0.34 W, P =0.021). There was no an improvement in myocardial performance index (–0.02 vs 0.01, P =0.030), but no change in reactive hyperemia index, or serum brain-type natriuretic peptide level. Conclusions: In the FUEL trial, treatment with udenafil (87.5 mg twice daily) was not associated with an improvement in oxygen consumption at peak exercise but was associated with improvements in multiple measures of exercise performance at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02741115.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it