MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107944843 · doi:10.3399/bjgp21x714245

Influence of polypharmacy on patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a retrospective analysis on adverse outcomes in the TOPCAT trial

2020· article· en· W3107944843 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaGuangdong Medical Research FoundationNational Postdoctoral Program for Innovative TalentsNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationUniversity of New South Wales
KeywordsMedicinePolypharmacyEjection fractionHeart failureInternal medicineHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionAtrial fibrillationDyslipidemiaCardiologyRetrospective cohort studyDiabetes mellitusDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common in heart failure (HF), whereas its effect on adverse outcomes in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unclear. AIM: To evaluate the prevalence, prognostic impacts, and predictors of polypharmacy in HFpEF patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective analysis performed on patients in the Americas region (including the US, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil) with symptomatic HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% in the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial, an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted during 2006-2013 in six countries. METHOD: Patients were categorised into four groups: controls (<5 medications), polypharmacy (5-9 medications), hyperpolypharmacy, (10-14 medications), and super hyperpolypharmacy (≥15 medications). The outcomes and predictors in all groups were assessed. RESULTS: Of 1761 participants, the median age was 72 years; 37.5% were polypharmacy, 35.9% were hyperpolypharmacy, and 19.6% were super hyperpolypharmacy, leaving 7.0% having a low medication burden. In multivariable regression models, three experimental groups with a high medication burden were all associated with a reduction in all-cause death, but increased risks of HF hospitalisation and all-cause hospitalisation. Furthermore, several comorbidities (dyslipidemia, thyroid diseases, diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), a history of angina pectoris, diastolic blood pressure <80 mmHg, and worse heart function (the New York Heart Association functional classification level III and IV) at baseline were independently associated with a high medication burden among patients with HFpEF. CONCLUSION: A high prevalence of high medication burden at baseline was reported in patients with HFpEF. The high medication burden might increase the risk of hospital readmission, but not the mortality.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.278 · 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