MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14404: The Fontan Udenafil Exercise Longitudinal Trial Subgroup Analysis

2020· article· en· W3106091402 on OpenAlexaff
David Goldberg, Russell Gongwer, Felicia Trachtenberg, Adam M. Lubert, Jonathan Rhodes, Daniel J. Penny, Christopher J. Petit, Kurt R. Schumacher, Salil Ginde, Richard V. Williams, Ja Kyoung Yoon, Gi Beom Kim, Todd Nowlen, Michael V. DiMaria, Benjamin P. Frischhertz, Jonathan B. Wagner, Kimberly E. McHugh, Brian W. McCrindle, Mark Cartoski, Jon Detterich, Angela Yetman, Anitha S. John, Marc E. Richmond, Delphine Yung, R. Mark Payne, Andrew S. Mackie, Christopher K. Davis, Shabana Shahanavaz, Kevin D. Hill, Marisa Almaguer, Michael G. McBride, Bryan H. Goldstein, Gail D. Pearson, Stephen M. Paridon

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubgroup analysisPlaceboCardiologyAnaerobic exerciseInternal medicinePopulationMultivariate analysisPhysical therapyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Pediatric Heart Network’s Fontan Udenafil Exercise Longitudinal (FUEL) Trial (Mezzion Pharma Co. Ltd., NCT 02741115) demonstrated improvements in exercise capacity and ventricular performance following six months of treatment with udenafil (87.5 mg twice daily). In this analysis we evaluated whether subgroups within the population experienced a differential effect on exercise performance in response to treatment. Methods: The effect of udenafil on exercise was evaluated within subgroups defined by gender, race, ventricular morphology, and baseline peak oxygen consumption (VO 2 ). Linear regression modeling evaluated for differential response to udenafil (interaction of subgroup with treatment arm). Individual subgroups were excluded if the number of participants was <5% of total. As the FUEL Trial was not powered for subgroup analysis, all analyses were viewed as exploratory. Results: Subgroup analyses demonstrated qualitative improvements in peak VO 2 , work rate at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT), VO 2 at VAT, and ventilatory efficiency (VE/VCO 2 ) for those randomized to udenafil compared to placebo in all subgroups (Table). There was not a differential response to udenafil based on gender, race, ventricular morphology, or baseline peak VO 2 , although participants in the lowest tertile of baseline peak VO 2 and those with single left ventricles trended toward larger improvements. Conclusion: The relatively uniform improvement among subgroups in response to treatment with udenafil is consistent with the findings from the primary analysis of the FUEL trial. While the absence of a statistically significant differential effect between subgroups suggests that the effect of udenafil may not be gender, race, or morphology specific, and may not vary based on baseline exercise performance, the possibility of a larger improvements in those with poor baseline peak VO 2 and those with single left ventricle warrants further investigation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→