MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388595007 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.479

External validation of the new REACT-HF score for heart failure prediction in patients with atrial fibrillation

2023· article· en· W4388595007 on OpenAlexaff
Giorgio Moschovitis, Elia Rigamonti, Andrea Wiencierz, Michael Coslovsky, Steffen Blum, Maria Luisa De Perna, Patrizia Mayer‐Melchiorre, Giuseppe Vassalli, Giovanni Pedrazzini, Jürg H. Beer, Stefan Osswald, Jeff S. Healey, David Conen, M Kuehne, Philipp Krisai

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersSchweizerische HerzstiftungUniversität BaselFoundation for Cardiovascular ResearchSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineHeart failureCardiologyFramingham Risk ScoreDiabetes mellitusCHA2DS2–VASc scoreProportional hazards modelHeart diseaseDiseaseIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Heart failure (HF) represents the main cause of hospital admissions and deaths among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, but precise risk prediction tools are lacking. Recently, the REACT-HF score has been developed to predict incident HF hospitalizations or cardiovascular (CV) death within 2-years based on 12 variables (sex, age, height, creatinine clearance, diabetes, vascular disease, valvular heart disease, heart rate and rhythm, left ventricular hypertrophy and intraventricular conduction delay). Purpose The aim of the present study was to externally validate the REACT-HF score within the Swiss-AF and BEAT-AF cohorts, and to investigate whether this score model can be improved by adding biomarkers (hs-CRP, NT-proBNP, hs-TNT). Methods We included 2’599 AF patients from the Swiss- and BEAT-AF cohorts without prior history of HF, with at least one follow-up and with all baseline variables needed for the REACT-HF score. To validate the score, we estimated a Cox model with the original score as the only predictor. We further explored whether the predictive performance of the REACT-HF score model could be improved by adding any combination of the above listed biomarkers. The primary outcome was incident HF hospitalization or CV death. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality. Results Mean age was 70.2 years, 29.1% were female and 54.8% had paroxysmal AF. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2.7 (+/- 1.6). The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (65%), diabetes (12%), vascular disease (23%) and coronary artery disease (36%). Most patients (1’883) presented a very low REACT-HF score below 0.05 (72.4%), 530 patients between 0.05 and below 0.1 (20.4%) and 186 had a risk score of 0.1 and above (7.2%). In the validation set, 380 (14.6%), 471 (18.1%), 511 (19.7%) 561 (21.6%) and 676 (26.0%) patients were categorized in the lowest to the highest quintiles based on the original score`s quintiles. Figure 1 shows the Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the primary endpoint of first HF hospitalization or CV death by quintiles of the REACT-HF score, applied in our pooled cohort. And Figure 2 shows the Kaplan-Meier curves for the 1st HF hospitalization. The incidence rates at 2-year follow-up per 100 patient-years of the primary outcome (0.39, 0.59, 1.58, 3.97, 7.53), HF hospitalization (0.39, 0.49, 1.38, 2.75, 6.26), CV death (0.0, 0.10, 0.20, 1.29, 2.12), and all cause-death (0.10, 0.49, 0.78, 2.29, 4.24) all increased gradually among the quintiles of risk score. The estimated c-statistic for the composite primary outcome was 0.764 (approximate 95% CI, 0.723-0.806). The best biomarker enhanced-model within our cohort was the model including hs-CRP and NT-proBNP (c-statistic 0.810). Conclusions The REACT-HF score discriminates well for prediction of HF hospitalization and CV death in a contemporary AF population and can be improved by including NT-pro-BNP and hs-CRP.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→