Participation in a Heart Failure Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often target enrollment of patients with demographics and outcomes less representative of the broader population of interest. To provide context for the VICTORIA trial (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), we designed a registry of hospitalized patients with worsening heart failure to characterize their clinical profile, outcomes, and reasons for their nonparticipation in a RCT. METHODS: Fifty-one RCT sites in Canada and the United States participated. Eligible patients included those with chronic heart failure, hospitalized for heart failure, and an ejection fraction <45%; no other exclusions were applied. Sites identified patients between 2017 and 2019 during the RCT enrollment period. RCT eligibility criteria were applied, and non-mutually exclusive reasons for nonenrollment were captured. Mortality at 1 year was estimated via the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score or as observed in the RCT. RESULTS: Overall, 2056 patients were enrolled in the registry; 61% (n=1256) were ineligible for the RCT, 37% (n=766) were eligible but not enrolled, and 2% (n=34) were also enrolled in the RCT. Registry participants had a median age of 70, 33% were women, and 63% were White. The median risk score predicted a 20.9% 1-year mortality, higher than in the RCT (predicted 14.7% and observed 11.5%). Major reasons for ineligibility in the RCT included the use of nitrates (23%), systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg (12%), and substance use (11%) with other exclusion criteria <10%. For eligible patients, reasons for nonparticipation in the RCT included lack of interest in participating (28%), poor compliance (25%), inability to complete follow-up (23%), too sick (20%), unable to provide consent (17%), and distance from site (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with worsening heart failure in routine clinical practice exhibit high-risk features, and approximately one-third were eligible for an RCT but excluded. The majority of these nonparticipating patients had modifiable reasons. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.
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 | 0.172 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".