Dissecting the Heart Failure Phenotype Through Phenomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article refers to 'Distinguishing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A phenomics approach' by B.J. van Essen et al., published in this issue on pages 841-850.Since 2016, patients with heart failure (HF) have been categorized into three groups based on their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, LVEF ≤40%), HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF, LVEF 41-49%), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, LVEF ≥50%). 1 HFrEF has been extensively studied, but HFpEF represents over 50% of all HF cases. 2 Individuals with HFpEF are typically older, female, and have more often comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, pulmonary or liver disease, and sleep apnoea, compared to those with HFrEF.[3][4][5] These comorbidities likely contribute to HFpEF development through mechanisms like increased ventricular stiffness, inflammation, and oxidative stress.6 A recent study showed that different, although somewhat overlapping, sets of proteins could predict both incident HFrEF and HFpEF.7 Despite progress, the molecular pathways of HFrEF and HFpEF remain only partially understood.Advances in omics technologies offer a comprehensive approach to elucidating the complex molecular pathways and clinical manifestations of HF.Each omics discipline focuses on a specific type of molecule: genomics on DNA sequences, epigenomics on epigenetic modifications, transcriptomics on RNA transcripts, proteomics on proteins, metabolomics on metabolites, and lipidomics on lipids.Historically, HF studies have examined single omics datasets in isolation, often without integrating these findings with clinical data.[8][9][10][11][12] Phenomics, integrating 'phenotypical' and 'omics' data, is a novel discipline seeking to understand the molecular underpinnings of disease manifestations, progression, prognostic markers and treatment responses.13 Through a multi-step process, omics and phenotypic data are collected and analysed using bioinformatics andThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Journal of Heart Failure or of the European Society of Cardiology.
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 | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".