MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 10887: The Under-Representation of Blacks, Females and Elderly in Randomized Controlled Trials of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

2021· article· en· W4226280567 on OpenAlexaff
Ibrahim Khayyat, Hani Khayyat, Thao Huynh

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyRandomized controlled trialHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionHeart failureInternal medicineEjection fractionPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is particularly prevalent in Blacks, women and elderly. Paradoxically, these patients are generally under-represented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to compare the representation of Blacks, females and elderly in RCTs and observational studies of HFpEF therapies. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the secular trends of enrollment of these populations in the RCTs of HFpEF. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive database search of PubMed and EMBASE to identify HFpEF RCTs and HFpEF observational studies. Two independent readers extracted data on the proportions of Blacks, females and the mean age of patients enrolled in these studies. We compared the weighted means of age, proportions of blacks and proportions of females in the RCTs to those of observational studies. We divided the RCTs in three groups (enrollment prior to 2010, 2010-2015 and 2015 to 2020). Finally, we ascertained the secular trend of enrollment of Blacks, females and mean age of patients in the RCTs. Results: Our search yielded 17 RCTs and 9 observational studies. The trials included a total of 19,432 patients. There were marked under-enrollment of Blacks and females in the RCTs compared to the observational studies (Table 1). Furthermore, the weighted mean age of patients with HFpEF was also lower than that in the observational studies. From 1997-2020, the enrollment of females and elderly have increased, however, the enrollment of Blacks remained low in the RCTs of HFpEF. Conclusions: Blacks, women and elderly remain underrepresented in RCTs of HFpEF. Future RCTs of HFpEF should aim to enroll more Blacks, females and elderly so that the benefits of novel therapies can be validated in these special populations with high prevalence of HFpEF.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.208
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.208
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.027
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.333
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.103 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→