MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386191518 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.3003

Sex Differences in Long-Term Outcomes Following Acute Heart Failure Hospitalization: Findings from the Get with the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry

2023· article· en· W4386191518 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Keshvani, Sonia Shah, Iyanuoluwa Ayodele, Karen Chiswell, Brooke Alhanti, Larry A. Allen, Stephen J. Greene, Clyde W. Yancy, Windy Alonso, Harriette G.C. Van Spall, Gregg C. Fonarow, Paul A. Heidenreich, Ambarish Pandey

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Institute on AgingAlnylam PharmaceuticalsGilead SciencesEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaAmgenNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstitutePfizerDuke Clinical Research InstituteNovo NordiskCytokineticsSanofiAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureEjection fractionInternal medicineProportional hazards modelPopulationCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims Sex differences in long-term outcomes following hospitalization for heart failure (HF) across ejection fraction (EF) subtypes are not well described. In this study, we evaluated the risk of mortality and rehospitalization among males and females across the spectrum of EF over 5 years of follow-up following an index HF hospitalization event. Methods and results Patients hospitalized with HF between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2014 from the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry with available 5-year follow-up using Medicare Part A claims data were included. The association between sex and risk of mortality and readmission over a 5-year follow-up period for each HF subtype (HF with reduced EF [HFrEF, EF ≤40%], HF with mildly reduced EF [HFmrEF, EF 41–49%], and HF with preserved EF [HFpEF, EF >50%]) was assessed using adjusted Cox models. The effect modification by the HF subtype for the association between sex and outcomes was assessed by including multiplicative interaction terms in the models. A total of 155 670 patients (median age: 81 years, 53.4% female) were included. Over 5-year follow-up, males and females had comparably poor survival post-discharge; however, females (vs. males) had greater years of survival lost to HF compared with the median age- and sex-matched US population (HFpEF: 17.0 vs. 14.6 years; HFrEF: 17.3 vs. 15.1 years; HFmrEF: 17.7 vs. 14.6 years for age group 65-69 years). In adjusted analysis, females (vs. males) had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87–0.90, p < 0.0001), and the risk difference was most pronounced among patients with HFrEF (aHR 0.87, 95% CI 0.85–0.89; pinteraction[sex*HF subtype] = 0.04). Females (vs. males) had a higher adjusted risk of HF readmission over 5-year follow-up (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04–1.08, p < 0.0001), with the risk difference most pronounced among patients with HFpEF (aHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07–1.14; pinteraction[sex*HF subtype] = 0.001). Conclusions While females (vs. males) had lower adjusted mortality, females experienced a significantly greater loss in survival time than the median age- and sex-matched US population and had a greater risk of rehospitalization over 5 years following HF hospitalization.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207