MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4306290977 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.515

Bone morphogenetic protein 10 as predictor for adverse outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation

2022· article· en· W4306290977 on OpenAlexaff
Elisa Hennings, Steffen Blum, Stefanie Aeschbacher, Michael Coslovsky, Sven Knecht, Rebecca E. Paladini, Philipp Krisai, Peter Kastner, André Ziegler, Christian Mueller, C S Zuern, Leo H. Bonati, David Conen, M Kuehne, S Osswald

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSchweizerische HerzstiftungSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsMedicineMaceInternal medicineHazard ratioCardiologyMyocardial infarctionProportional hazards modelAtrial fibrillationHeart failureConfidence intervalPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) face an increased risk of death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Bone morphogenetic protein 10 (BMP10) is a novel atrial-specific biomarker, but data about its prognostic value in AF patients are lacking. Purpose We aimed to assess the predictive value of BMP10 for death and MACE in AF patients in comparison to N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Methods Baseline concentrations of BMP10 and NT-proBNP were measured in stable patients with AF enrolled in Swiss-AF, a prospective multicenter observational cohort study. Primary outcomes were all-cause death and MACE (composite of heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular death, stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction). Measures of discriminative power were used to compare multivariable Cox proportional hazard models using the different biomarkers. Results A total of 2219 AF patients were included with a median follow-up of 4.3 years (IQR 3.9, 5.1). Mean age was 73±9 years and 27% were women. Incidence rate per 100 patient-years of all-cause death and MACE increased across BMP10 quartiles (Figure 1). In the multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazard model, the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of BMP10 was 1.60 (1.37; 1.87) to predict all-cause death, and 1.54 (1.35; 1.76) to predict MACE. For all-cause death, the C-index (95% CI) was 0.783 (0.763; 0.809) for BMP10, 0.784 (0.765; 0.810) for NT-proBNP, and 0.789 (0.771; 0.815) for both biomarkers combined. For MACE, the C-index (95% CI) was 0.732 (0.715; 0.754) for BMP10, 0.747 (0.731; 0.768) for NT-proBNP, and 0.750 (0.734; 0.771) for both biomarkers combined. When grouping patients according to clinical used NT-proBNP categories (<300, 300–900, >900 ng/l), higher incidence rates and adjusted HRs were observed for the primary outcomes in patients with high BMP10 in the categories of low NT-proBNP (all-cause death aHR 2.28 [1.15; 4.52], MACE aHR 1.88 [1.07; 3.28]) and high NT-proBNP (all-cause death aHR 1.61 [1.14; 2.26], MACE aHR 1.38 [1.07; 1.80]) (Figure 2). Conclusion The novel atrial-specific biomarker BMP10 strongly predicts all-cause death and MACE in patients with AF. BMP10 provides additional prognostic information in low- and high-risk patients according to NT-proBNP stratification. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.256 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→