MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 16139: A Targeted Proteomic Approach to Identify Circulating Biomarkers of Heart Failure Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in DECLARE-TIMI 58

2020· article· en· W3162761774 on OpenAlexaff
David D. Berg, Stephen D. Wiviott, Itamar Raz, Frederick Kamanu, KyungAh Im, Avivit Cahn, Ofri Mosenzon, Deepak L. Bhatt, Petr Jarolı́m, Lawrence A. Leiter, Darren K. McGuire, John Wilding, Yong Huo, José López‐Sendón, Diego Ardissino, Ingrid Gause‐Nilsson, Marc S. Sabatine, David A. Morrow

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGDF15 and Related Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNatriuretic peptideInternal medicineHeart failureType 2 Diabetes MellitusDiabetes mellitusBiomarkerType 2 diabetesEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients (pts) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at increased risk of heart failure (HF); however, the underlying mechanisms by which T2DM contributes to HF are incompletely understood. Hypothesis: We aimed to identify biological pathways associated with risk of hospitalization for HF (HHF) in a well-characterized cohort with T2DM followed for a median of 4.2 yrs. Methods: DECLARE-TIMI 58 was a randomized trial of dapagliflozin in pts with T2DM. We performed a nested case-control study of 184 candidate biomarkers (Olink CV II and CV III) in pts hospitalized for HF (n=432) and controls matched on age, sex, prior HF, prior CV disease, and f/u time (n=432). We evaluated associations between baseline biomarkers and HHF using logistic regression with a stringent threshold for significance (Bonferroni). Biomarkers were ranked according to Wald χ 2 values. ORs for the top 10 biomarkers were further adjusted for the components of the TIMI Risk Score for HF in Diabetes (AF, UACR, eGFR, CAD). ORs are per 1-SD. Results: 45 biomarkers were significantly associated with HHF. The 10 strongest associations were seen with N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), B type natriuretic peptide (BNP), spondin-1 (SPON1), insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), interleukin-6 (IL-6), fibroblast growth factor-23 (FGF-23), transferrin receptor protein 1 (TR), metalloproteinase inhibitor 4 (TIMP4), matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2), C-X-C motif chemokine 16 (CXCL16) ( Fig ). All 10 biomarkers were significantly associated with HHF both in pts with and without a history of HF. These proteins represent pathobiological axes implicated in hemodynamic stress, inflammation, myocardial hypertrophy, and cellular senescence, among others. Conclusions: A targeted proteomic approach identified established (NT-proBNP, BNP), investigational (IGFBP7, FGF-23, IL-6, TR, TIMP4, MMP-2, CXCL16), and novel (SPON1) biomarkers of HHF in pts with T2DM.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicGDF15 and Related BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207