Dietary Sodium Intake and Outcomes: a Secondary Analysis From Sodium-HF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This post hoc analysis of SODIUM-HF (Study of Dietary Intervention under 100 mmol in Heart Failure) assessed the association between baseline dietary sodium intake and change at 6 months with a composite of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations, emergency department visits and all-cause death at 12 and 24 months. BACKGROUND: Dietary sodium restriction is common advice for patients with heart failure (HF). Randomized clinical trials have not shown a beneficial effect of dietary sodium restriction on clinical outcomes. METHODS: A multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to assess the association of dietary sodium intake measured at randomization with primary and secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The study included 792 participants. Baseline sodium intake was ≤ 1500 mg/day in 19.9% (n = 158), 1501-3000 mg/day in 56.5% (n = 448) and > 3000 mg/day in 23.4% (n = 186) of participants. The factors associated with higher baseline sodium intake were higher calorie consumption, higher body mass index and recruitment from Canada. Multivariable analyses showed no association between baseline sodium intake nor magnitude of 6-month change or 12- or 24-month outcomes. In a responder analysis, participants achieving a sodium intake < 1500 mg at 6 months showed an association with a decreased risk for the composite outcome (adjusted HR 0.52 [95% CI 0.25, 1.07] P = 0.08) and CV hospitalization (adjusted HR 0.51 [95% CI 0.24, 1.09] P = 0.08) at 12 months. CONCLUSION: There was no association between dietary sodium intake and clinical outcomes over 24 months in patients with HF. Responder analyses suggest the need for further investigation of the effects of sodium reduction in those who achieve the targeted dietary sodium-reduction level.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".