Tumour biomarkers: association with heart failure outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition that heart failure (HF) and cancer are conditions with a number of shared characteristics. OBJECTIVES: To explore the association between tumour biomarkers and HF outcomes. METHODS: In 2,079 patients of BIOSTAT-CHF cohort, we measured six established tumour biomarkers: CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CEA, CYFRA 21-1 and AFP. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 21 months, 555 (27%) patients reached the primary end-point of all-cause mortality. CA125, CYFRA 21-1, CEA and CA19-9 levels were positively correlated with NT-proBNP quartiles (all P < 0.001, P for trend < 0.001) and were, respectively, associated with a hazard ratio of 1.17 (95% CI 1.12-1.23; P < 0.0001), 1.45 (95% CI 1.30-1.61; P < 0.0001), 1.19 (95% CI 1.09-1.30; P = 0.006) and 1.10 (95% CI 1.05-1.16; P < 0.001) for all-cause mortality after correction for BIOSTAT risk model (age, BUN, NT-proBNP, haemoglobin and beta blocker). All tumour biomarkers (except AFP) had significant associations with secondary end-points (composite of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization, HF hospitalization, cardiovascular (CV) mortality and non-CV mortality). ROC curves showed the AUC of CYFRA 21-1 (0.64) had a noninferior AUC compared with NT-proBNP (0.68) for all-cause mortality (P = 0.08). A combination of CYFRA 21-1 and NT-proBNP (AUC = 0.71) improved the predictive value of the model for all-cause mortality (P = 0.0002 compared with NT-proBNP). CONCLUSIONS: Several established tumour biomarkers showed independent associations with indices of severity of HF and independent prognostic value for HF outcomes. This demonstrates that pathophysiological pathways sensed by these tumour biomarkers are also dysregulated in HF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".