MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Participation in a Heart Failure Clinical Trial

2021· article· en· W3194683466 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justin A. Ezekowitz, Robert J. Mentz, Cynthia M. Westerhout, Nancy K. Sweitzer, Michael M. Givertz, Ileana L. Piña, Christopher M. O’Connor, Stephen J. Greene, Ciaran J. McMullan, Lothar Roessig, Adrian F. Hernandez, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureIntensive care medicineClinical trialInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.315 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207