Differences in NT‐proBNP Response and Prognosis in Men and Women With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) is a prognostic biomarker in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. However, it is unclear whether there is a sex difference in NT-proBNP response and whether the therapeutic goal of NT-proBNP ≤1000 pg/mL has equivalent prognostic value in men and women with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results In a secondary analysis of the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial we analyzed trends in NT-proBNP and goal attainment by sex. Differences in clinical characteristics, HF treatment, and time to all-cause death or HF hospitalization were compared. Landmark analysis at 3 months determined the prognostic value of early NT-proBNP goal achievement in men and women. Of the 286 (32%) women and 608 (68%) men in the GUIDE-IT trial, women were more likely to have a nonischemic cause and shorter duration of HF. Guideline-directed medical therapy was less intense over time in women. The absolute NT-proBNP values were consistently lower in women; however, the change in NT-proBNP and clinical outcomes were similar. After adjustment, women achieving the NT-proBNP goal had an 82% reduction in death or HF hospitalization compared with a 59% reduction in men. Conclusions Men and women with HF with reduced ejection fraction had a similar NT-proBNP response despite less intensive HF treatment among women. However, compared with men, the early NT-proBNP goal of ≤1000 pg/mL had greater prognostic value in women. Future efforts should be aimed at intensifying guideline-directed medical therapy in women, which may result in greater NT-proBNP reductions and improved outcomes in women with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01685840.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".