MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084752132 · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.07.044

Sex-Specific Associations of Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Biomarkers With Incident Heart Failure

2020· review· en· W3084752132 on OpenAlexaff
Navin Suthahar, Emily S. Lau, Michael J. Blaha, Samantha M. Paniagua, Martin G. Larson, Bruce M. Psaty, Emelia J. Benjamin, Matthew Allison, Traci M. Bartz, James L. Januzzi, Daniel Levy, Laura M.G. Meems, Stephan J. L. Bakker, João A.C. Lima, Mary Cushman, Douglas S. Lee, Thomas J. Wang, Christopher R. deFilippi, David M. Herrington, Matthew Nayor, Ramachandran S. Vasan, Julius M. Gardin, Jorge R. Kizer, Alain G. Bertoni, Norrina B. Allen, Ron T. Gansevoort, Sanjiv J. Shah, John S. Gottdiener, Jennifer E. Ho, Rudolf A. de Boer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Cardiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicIL-33, ST2, and ILC Pathways
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
FundersActelion PharmaceuticalsJanssen PharmaceuticalsNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on AgingU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationNational Institutes of HealthNierstichtingAmgenSingulexNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeUnited Therapeutics CorporationNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstitutePfizerAmerican Heart AssociationHartstichtingGeneral ElectricSphingotec GmbHCytokineticsAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineHeart failureCreatinineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyHazard ratioFibrinogenNatriuretic peptideBody mass indexBiomarkerDiabetes mellitusCystatin CFramingham Risk ScoreEndocrinologyDiseaseConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Whether cardiovascular (CV) disease risk factors and biomarkers associate differentially with heart failure (HF) risk in men and women is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate sex-specific associations of CV risk factors and biomarkers with incident HF. METHODS: The analysis was performed using data from 4 community-based cohorts with 12.5 years of follow-up. Participants (recruited between 1989 and 2002) were free of HF at baseline. Biomarker measurements included natriuretic peptides, cardiac troponins, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, D-dimer, fibrinogen, C-reactive protein, sST2, galectin-3, cystatin-C, and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio. RESULTS: Among 22,756 participants (mean age 60 ± 13 years, 53% women), HF occurred in 2,095 participants (47% women). Age, smoking, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, body mass index, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, left ventricular hypertrophy, and left bundle branch block were strongly associated with HF in both sexes (p < 0.001), and the combined clinical model had good discrimination in men (C-statistic = 0.80) and in women (C-statistic = 0.83). The majority of biomarkers were strongly and similarly associated with HF in both sexes. The clinical model improved modestly after adding natriuretic peptides in men (ΔC-statistic = 0.006; likelihood ratio chi-square = 146; p < 0.001), and after adding cardiac troponins in women (ΔC-statistic = 0.003; likelihood ratio chi-square = 73; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CV risk factors are strongly and similarly associated with incident HF in both sexes, highlighting the similar importance of risk factor control in reducing HF risk in the community. There are subtle sex-related differences in the predictive value of individual biomarkers, but the overall improvement in HF risk estimation when included in a clinical HF risk prediction model is limited in both sexes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations104
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of CardiologySame topicIL-33, ST2, and ILC PathwaysFrench-language works237,207