MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Results of the FUEL Trial

2019· article· en· W2983014462 on OpenAlexaff
David Goldberg, Victor Zak, Bryan H. Goldstein, Kurt R. Schumacher, Jonathan Rhodes, Daniel J. Penny, Christopher J. Petit, Salil Ginde, Shaji C. Menon, Seong Ho Kim, Gi Beom Kim, Todd Nowlen, Michael V. DiMaria, Benjamin P. Frischhertz, Jonathan B. Wagner, Kimberly E. McHugh, Brian W. McCrindle, Amanda J. Shillingford, Arash Sabati, Anji T. Yetman, Anitha S. John, Marc E. Richmond, Matthew D. Files, R. Mark Payne, Andrew S. Mackie, Christopher K. Davis, Shabana Shahanavaz, Kevin D. Hill, Ruchira Garg, Jeffrey P. Jacobs, Michelle Hamstra, Stacy Woyciechowski, Kathleen A. Rathge, Michael G. McBride, Peter C. Frommelt, Mark W. Russell, Elaine M. Urbina, James L. Yeager, Victoria L. Pemberton, Mario Stylianou, Gail D. Pearson, Stephen M. Paridon

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.009

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations159
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207