The association of hematological indices with the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a single-center study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established therapeutic option for patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35 % who meet specific criteria according to current guidelines. However, up to 40 % of patients have no response to CRT. Our study aimed to investigate the association between different hematological and biochemical indices and response to CRT. METHODS: Patients with HF due to ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy referred to our hospital for CRT implantation from January 2013 to November 2017 were included in the study. Response to CRT was defined as an increase in LVEF ≥10 % or a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) ≥15 % at six months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients (mean age: 66.2 ± 9.5 years, 81.3 % males) were included in the study. Of these HF patients, 29 (60.4 %) had ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 19 (39.6 %) had dilated cardiomyopathy. At six months of follow-up, 37 patients (77.1 %) had responded to CRT. Ten patients (20.8 %) had ventricular tachycardia (VT), 24 (50 %) patients were hospitalized, and two patients (4.2 %) died during the follow-up period. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age (p =0.03) and creatinine levels (p =0.02) were independent predictors of the response to CRT. No significant associations between hematological markers (white blood cells, neutrophils, lymphocytes, platelets, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, red blood cells distribution width) and CRT response were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A smaller increase in LVEF and a smaller decrease in LVESV were predictive for VT occurrence and hospitalizations in patients receiving CRT. No significant association between hematological markers and response to CRT was found. HIPPOKRATIA 2019, 23(3): 118-125.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".