Evaluating the Application of Chronic Heart Failure Therapies and Developing Treatments in Individuals With Recent Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Despite advances in cardiac care, patients remain at a high risk of death and the development of heart failure (HF) following myocardial infarction (MI). These risks are highest in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) or signs of HF immediately after MI. Drugs to mitigate these risks have been identified through the systematic evaluation of therapies with proven efficacy in patients with HF and reduced EF (HFrEF). Observations: Although landmark studies in patients with HFrEF consistently exclude patients with recent MI, dedicated post-MI trials of these drugs have led to multiple therapies with proven benefit in these patients. However, not all therapies with proven efficacy in patients with chronic HF have been shown to provide benefit in the post-MI population, as recently evidenced by the discrepant results between chronic HF and post-MI trials of sacubitril-valsartan. Similarly, multiple trials of early and aggressive use of therapies effective in chronic heart failure immediately post-MI failed to demonstrate benefit or were associated with harm, emphasizing the vulnerability of the post-MI population. Conclusions and Relevance: Trials of patients at high risk of HF following MI have emphasized the differences between the post-MI and HFrEF populations and the necessity for dedicated trials in the post-MI population. This review summarizes trials studying the use of these therapies for at-risk patients following MI from therapies used in patients with HFrEF and exploring new potential therapies for this high-risk population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".