Comparing New York Heart Association Class and Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Alignment between clinician-reported New York Heart Association (NYHA) class compared and patient-reported outcomes among patients hospitalized for heart failure is unclear. Methods: ASCEND-HF (Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure) was a global randomized trial comparing nesiritide versus placebo among patients hospitalized for heart failure, irrespective of ejection fraction. Among patients with complete baseline data for NYHA class and the patient-reported EuroQOL-5 dimensions ([EQ-5D], both utility index and visual analog scale), levels of each scale were mapped across 4 prespecified categories “best” to “worst.” Minor and moderate-severe discordance were defined as NYHA class and EQ-5D differing by 1 level and ≥2 levels, respectively. Multivariable models assessed factors independently associated with moderate-severe discordance, and associations between discordance and clinical outcomes. Results: Among 5741 patients, concordance, minor discordance, and moderate-severe discordance between NYHA class and EQ-5D utility index occurred in 22%, 40%, and 38% of patients, respectively. For NYHA class and EQ-5D visual analog scale, this categorization occurred in 29%, 48%, and 23%. Discordance was more often due to disproportionately higher EQ-5D score (78% of discordance cases with utility index, and 70% with visual analog scale). NYHA class IV, higher EQ-5D scores, race, and geographic region were among patient factors independently associated with moderate-severe discordance. Magnitude of discordance was not associated with clinical outcomes; however, EQ-5D utility index disproportionately worse than NYHA class was associated with increased 180-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.27 [95% CI, 1.01–1.60]; P =0.04). Conclusions: In a global trial cohort of patients hospitalized for heart failure, the majority of patients exhibited discordance between clinician-reported NYHA class and patient-reported health status. Multiple patient factors were independently associated with moderate-severe discordance, and patients who perceived their health status as worse than the clinician’s perception had higher mortality. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT00475852.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".