MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388595966 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.883

Contrasting patterns of symptoms compared to mortality in women and men with Congestive Heart Failure (the G-CHF registry)

2023· article· en· W4388595966 on OpenAlexaff
Marjan Walli-Attaei, Philip Joseph, Tara McCready, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureEjection fractionInternal medicineEtiologyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background There is a paucity of data on the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of women compared with men with heart failure, especially in low-and middle-income countries. Purpose In this study from the Global Congestive Heart Failure registry, we examined sex differences in risk factors, clinical characteristics, treatments, and the risk of heart failure hospitalization and mortality by country economic status and by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) category. Methods In the prospective Global-Congestive Heart Failure (G-CHF) study, participants with established heart failure were considered for inclusion from 40 high-, middle-, and low-income countries. We recorded information on the demographic characteristics, medical history, and treatments of participants. We report data on heart failure hospitalization and mortality by sex overall, by country economic status, and by LVEF category. Results From December 2016 to July 2022, 23,000 participants were recruited and followed up. The average age of women in the study was 62 years compared to 64 years in men. Fewer women than men had a LVEF ≤40 (51.7% women vs 66.3% men). By contrast, more women than men had an LVEF≥ 50 (33.2% women vs 18.6% men). Hypertensive heart failure was the most common etiology in women (25.5% women vs 16.8% men), and ischemic heart failure was the most common etiology in men (45.6% men vs 26.6% women). Signs and symptoms of heart failure were more common in women than men: 42.6% of women were NYHA functional class III/IV compared to 37.9% of men. Among participants with a LVEF <35, use of implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) was lower in women than men in the overall study (8.7% women vs 17.2% men), and within countries categorized by economic status. However, the use of heart failure medicines and cardiac tests did not differ systematically by sex. Differences by sex were not observed in the adjusted risk of heart failure hospitalization overall (women-to-men adjusted hazard ratio 1.0 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07)). This pattern was consistent within countries categorized by economic status, geographic region, and by LVEF category. Women had a lower adjusted risk of mortality overall (women-to-men adjusted hazard ratio 0.82 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.87), which was consistently observed within countries categories by economic status, geographic region, and LVEF levels. Conclusions There are differences between women and men in heart failure symptoms, underlying causes, ejection fraction categories, and use of an ICD. However, use heart failure medications, cardiac tests, and hospitalization were similar in women and men; but women had a lower risk of death.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.258 · 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→