MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex-Specific Clinical Outcomes of the PACT-HF Randomized Trial

2021· article· en· W3208161924 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Harriette G.C. Van Spall, Ersilia M. DeFilippis, Shun Fu Lee, Urun Erbas Oz, Richard Perez, Jeff S. Healey, Larry A. Allen, Adriaan A. Voors, Dennis T. Ko, Lehana Thabane, Stuart J. Connolly

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareMcMaster UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioHeart failureRandomized controlled trialEmergency departmentTransitional careProportional hazards modelInternal medicineConfidence intervalHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Transitional care may have different effects in males and females hospitalized for heart failure. We assessed the sex-specific effects of a transitional care model on clinical outcomes following hospitalization for heart failure. Methods: In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of adults hospitalized for heart failure in Ontario, Canada, 10 hospitals were randomized to a group of transitional care services or usual care. Outcomes in this exploratory analysis were composite all-cause readmission, emergency department visit, or death at 6 months; and composite all-cause readmission or emergency department visit at 6 months. Models were adjusted for stepped-wedge design and patient age. Results: Among 2494 adults, mean (SD) age was 77.7 (12.1) years, and 1258 (50.4%) were female. The first composite outcome occurred in 371 (66.3%) versus 433 (64.1%) males (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04 [95% CI, 0.86–1.26]; P =0.67) and in 326 (59.9%) versus 463 (64.8%) females (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69–1.01]; P =0.06) in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively ( P =0.012 for sex interaction). The second composite outcome occurred in 357 (63.8%) versus 417 (61.7%) males (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.85–1.24]; P =0.76) and 314 (57.7%) versus 450 (63.0%) females (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67–0.99]; P =0.037) in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively ( P =0.024 for sex interaction). The sex differences were driven by a reduction in all-cause emergency department visits among females (HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51–0.87]; P =0.003), but not males (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.85–1.43]; P =0.46), receiving the intervention ( P <0.001 for sex interaction). Conclusions: A transitional care model offered a reduction in all-cause emergency department visits among females but not males following hospitalization for heart failure. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02112227.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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