The Chronic Heart Failure Evolutions: Different Fates and Routes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Individual prognostic assessment and disease evolution pathways are undefined in chronic heart failure (HF). The application of unsupervised learning methodologies could help to identify patient phenotypes and the progression in each phenotype as well as to assess adverse event risk. Methods and results From a bulk of 7948 HF patients included in the MECKI registry, we selected patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. We implemented a topological data analysis (TDA), based on 43 variables derived from clinical, biochemical, cardiac ultrasound, and exercise evaluations, to identify several patients’ clusters. Thereafter, we used the trajectory analysis to describe the evolution of HF states, which is able to identify bifurcation points, characterized by different follow-up paths, as well as specific end-stages conditions of the disease. Finally, we conducted a 5-year survival analysis (composite of cardiovascular death, left ventricular assist device, or urgent heart transplant). Findings were validated on internal (n = 527) and external (n = 777) populations. We analyzed 4876 patients (age = 63 [53–71], male gender n = 3973 (81.5%), NYHA class I–II n = 3576 (73.3%), III–IV n = 1300 (26.7%), LVEF = 33 [25.5–39.9], atrial fibrillation n = 791 (16.2%), peak VO2% pred = 54.8 [43.8–67.2]), with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Nineteen patient clusters were identified by TDA. Trajectory analysis revealed a path characterized by 3 bifurcation and 4 end-stage points. Clusters survival rate varied from 44% to 100% at 2 years and from 20% to 100% at 5 years, respectively. The event frequency at 5-year follow-up for each study cohort cluster was successfully compared with those in the validation cohorts (R = 0.94 and R = 0.84, P < 0.001, for internal and external cohort, respectively). Finally, we conducted a 5-year survival analysis (composite of cardiovascular death, left ventricular assist device, or urgent heart transplant observed in 22% of cases). Conclusions Each HF phenotype has a specific disease progression and prognosis. These findings allow to individualize HF patient evolutions and to tailor assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".