Obesity, Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction, and the Role of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has a high prevalence, affecting more than 50% of patients with heart failure. HFpEF is associated with multiple comorbidities, and obesity is one of the most common. A distinct phenotype has been proposed for obese patients with HFpEF. Recent data show the beneficial role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for weight loss in diabetic and non-diabetic patients with obesity or overweight when given as adjunctive therapy to diet and exercise. The mechanisms of action are related to paracrine and endocrine signalling pathways within the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and central nervous system that delay gastric emptying, decrease appetite, augment pancreatic beta-cell insulin secretion, and suppress pancreatic glucagon release. These drugs are therefore potentially indicated for treatment of patients with HFpEF and obesity or overweight. Efficacy and safety need to be shown by clinical trials with a first one, Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (STEP HFpEF), recently concluded. The aim of the present review is to provide the pathophysiological and pharmacological rationale for GLP-1 RA administration to obese patients with HFpEF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".