MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388594902 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.797

Biomarker profiles of favorable ventricular remodeling in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction: Insights from the echocardiographic substudy of the VICTORIA trial

2023· article· en· W4388594902 on OpenAlexaff
Jasper Tromp, Carolyn S.P. Lam, Wendimagegn Alemayehu, Christopher R. deFilippi, Karen Sliwa, Yu. M. Lopatin, Maria Cecilia Bahit, Lothar Roessig, Christopher M. O’Connor, Palak Shah, Cynthia M. Westerhout, Adriaan A. Voors, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMerck Sharp and DohmeBayer
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionInternal medicineInterquartile rangeCardiologyVentricular remodelingHeart failureBiomarker

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Favorable ventricular remodeling, defined as a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume indexed (LVESVI) to body surface area or an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Because the underlying biomarker correlates remain unclear, we investigated circulating biomarker profiles and their relationship to ventricular remodeling. Methods We studied 419 high-risk patients with worsening HFrEF from the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) trial with core-lab assessed echocardiograms and measurements of 92 biomarkers (Olink CVD III panel). Biomarkers were measured in plasma using proximity extension assays and conventional ELISAs. Paired biomarkers (in 306 patients) and echocardiographic measurements (in 419 patients) were available at baseline and 8 months post-randomization. We evaluated the association of biomarkers at baseline and their temporal changes with favorable cardiac remodeling. Favorable remodeling was prespecified as a 5% LVEF absolute increase or 15% LVESVI relative decrease between baseline and 8 months. Reported p-values for protein changes are adjusted for the false discovery rate (FDR) at 0.05 to account for multiple comparisons. Results Of 419 patients (median age 66 [interquartile range 57-74] years, 27.4% women), 206 (49.2%) had favorable remodeling and 213 (50.8%) did not. Patients with favorable remodeling had a lower median body mass index (26.5 vs 28.3 kg/m2, P = 0.010), lower prevalence of diabetes (36.4% vs 47.4%, P = 0.022) and coronary artery disease (39.3% vs 62.0%, P<0.001). After correcting for multiple testing, no baseline biomarker levels differed between patients with and without favorable remodeling. Between baseline and 8 months, however, there was a significant decrease in biomarkers relating to inflammation and cardiac metabolism with favorable remodeling compared with those without (Figure). Particularly NT-proBNP (ratio 0.46, 95%confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.57), TNF Superfamily Member 13b (ratio 0.85, 95%CI 0.80-0.91), growth differentiation factor-15 (ratio 0.76, 95%CI 0.68-0.84), cathepsin D (ratio 0.88, 95%CI 0.82-0.94), and insulin growth factor binding protein 7 (ratio 0.81, 95%CI 0.74-0.88) showed a significantly larger decrease in those with than those without favorable remodeling (Figure and Table). Conclusion Our results suggest favorable cardiac remodeling occurs in half of high-risk HFrEF with recent worsening. We provide new insights into the clinical phenoype and associated inflammatory and cardiac metabolism changes. These findings may help identify potential treatment targets for future drug discovery.

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)0.003
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→