MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Udenafil on Echocardiographic Indices of Single Ventricle Size and Function in FUEL Study Participants

2022· article· en· W4309193297 on OpenAlexaff
Michael V. Di Maria, David Goldberg, Victor Zak, Chenwei Hu, Adam M. Lubert, Andréea Dragulescu, Andrew S. Mackie, Andrew W. McCrary, Angela Weingarten, Anitha Parthiban, Benjamin H. Goot, Bryan H. Goldstein, Carolyn L. Taylor, Christopher Lindblade, Christopher J. Petit, Christopher F. Spurney, David M. Harrild, Elaine M. Urbina, Eleanor L. Schuchardt, Gi Beom Kim, Ja Kyoung Yoon, Jamie Colombo, Matthew D. Files, Megan Schoessling, Peter Ermis, Pierre C. Wong, Ruchira Garg, Sara K. Swanson, Shaji C. Menon, Shubhika Srivastava, Thor Thorsson, Tiffanie R. Johnson, Usha Krishnan, Stephen M. Paridon, Peter C. Frommelt

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsVentricleMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAtrioventricular valvePlaceboDiastoleCohortBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The FUEL trial (Fontan Udenafil Exercise Longitudinal) demonstrated statistical improvements in exercise capacity following 6 months of treatment with udenafil (87.5 mg po BID). The effect of udenafil on echocardiographic measures of single ventricle function in this cohort has not been studied. Methods: The 400 enrolled participants were randomized 1:1 to udenafil or placebo. Protocol echocardiograms were obtained at baseline and 26 weeks after initiation of udenafil/placebo. Linear regression compared change from baseline indices of single ventricle systolic, diastolic and global function, atrioventricular valve regurgitation, and mean Fontan fenestration gradient in the udenafil cohort versus placebo, controlling for ventricular morphology (left ventricle versus right ventricle/other) and baseline value. Results: The udenafil participants (n=191) had significantly improved between baseline and 26 weeks visits compared to placebo participants (n=195) in myocardial performance index ( P =0.03, adjusted mean difference [SE] of changes between groups −0.03[0.01]), atrioventricular valve inflow peak E ( P =0.009, 3.95 [1.50]), and A velocities ( P =0.034, 3.46 [1.62]), and annular Doppler tissue imaging-derived peak e′ velocity ( P =0.008, 0.60[0.23]). There were no significant differences in change in single ventricle size, systolic function, atrioventricular valve regurgitation severity, or mean fenestration gradient. Participants with a dominant left ventricle had significantly more favorable baseline values of indices of single ventricle size and function (lower volumes and areas, E/e′ ratio, systolic:diastolic time and atrioventricular valve regurgitation, and higher annular s′ and e′ velocity). Conclusions: FUEL participants who received udenafil demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in some global and diastolic echo indices. Although small, the changes in diastolic function suggest improvement in pulmonary venous return and/or augmented ventricular compliance, which may help explain improved exercise performance in that cohort. Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT02741115.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207