MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306255343 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.871

Alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin combined are a powerful predictor of outcome in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: an analysis of the ATMOSPHERE and PARADIGM-HF trials

2022· article· en· W4306255343 on OpenAlexaff
Carly Adamson, J H Butt, Jean L. Rouleau, William T. Abraham, AS Desai, Kenneth Dickstein, Lars Køber, Martin Lefkowitz, Milton Packer, Mark C. Petrie, Karl Swedberg, Scott D. Solomon, Michael R. Zile, Pardeep S. Jhund, John J.V. McMurray

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBilirubinMedicineHeart failureEjection fractionInternal medicineAlkaline phosphataseCardiologyPopulationAmbulatoryGastroenterologyEnzymeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Bilirubin is a recognized predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), possibly because it is a marker of congestion. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is an enzyme produced in many tissues including the biliary ducts and elevated levels are also associated with congestion. Purpose To examine the prognostic value of ALP alone and in combination with bilirubin in patients with HFrEF. Methods The study population was ambulatory patients with HFrEF enrolled in 2 recent clinical trials with similar inclusion and exclusion criteria: ATMOSPHERE (derivation cohort) and PARADIGM-HF (validation). Cut points to define elevated bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase were >17mg/dL and >120 U/L respectively. The composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, its components, and all-cause death related to elevation of one, other or both of bilirubin and ALP was examined using Cox regression. Univariable and multivariable models with adjustment for other recognized prognostic variables including NT-proBNP were analyzed. Results Of 7016 patients with HFrEF enrolled in ATMOSPHERE, 6870 had a measurement of both bilirubin and ALP at baseline: mean age 63 years, 22% women, mean LVEF 28% and proportion NYHA class III/IV 37%. Bilirubin and ALP were both normal in 4810 (70.0%) patients, bilirubin was elevated in 1393 (20.3%), ALP was elevated in 360 (5.2%) and both were elevated in 307 (4.5%) patients. Patients with elevation of both ALP and bilirubin were older, had lower systolic blood pressure, higher heart rate, higher NT-pro BNP, more clinical features of congestion, more atrial fibrillation and a greater proportion were treated with diuretics and digoxin. The primary endpoint rates (per 100 person-years) were 10.4 (95% CI 9.9–11.0) when both markers were normal, 15.1 (13.9–16.4) when bilirubin was elevated, 12.4 (10.4–14.9) when alkaline phosphatase was elevated, and 25.6 (22.0–29.9) when both markers were elevated (Figure 1). The adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) were (both biomarkers normal = reference): elevated bilirubin 1.19 (1.07–1.31), P=0.001; elevated ALP 1.03 (0.84–1.26), P=0.81; both elevated 1.45 (1.21–1.73), P<0.001. Elevation of both bilirubin and ALP was a significant independent predictor of the components of the primary outcome and all-cause death, the corresponding hazard ratios for all cause death were 1.12 (0.99–1.25), p=0.06; 1.19 (0.96–1.47), p=0.12; and 1.51 (1.25–1.82), p<0.001. These findings were validated in PARADIGM-HF (Table 1). Conclusions Elevation of ALP in combination with elevated bilirubin identifies a small group of patients at very high risk of adverse outcomes. This may reflect more significant congestion. ALP and bilirubin, inexpensive and routinely measured biochemical tests, are useful prognostic markers in patients with HFrEF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207