MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403284913 · doi:10.14740/cr1635

Evaluating the Prognostic Value of the Modified H<sub>2</sub>FPEF Score in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

2024· article· en· W4403284913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ya Qiong Jin, Geng Lu, Yue Li, Ke Ke Wang, Bing Xiao, Meng Xiao Wang, Xue Ying Gao, Jie Zhang, Xiu Chun Yang, Jing Chao Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEjection fractionCardiologyMedicineInternal medicineHeart failureValue (mathematics)Fraction (chemistry)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The H 2 FPEF score, a convenient tool developed for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), exhibited useful prognostic utility in HFpEF. However, the applicability and the prognostic value of the H 2 FPEF score in Chinese HFpEF patients have yet to be fully confirmed. The study aimed to evaluate the effect of modified H 2 FPEF score on the prognosis of Chinese HFpEF patients. Methods: In this retrospective study, we calculated the H 2 FPEF scores by body mass index (BMI) 25 kg/m 2 and 30 kg/m 2 respectively, for 497 consecutive HFpEF patients in China. Subjects were divided into low- (0 - 3 points), intermediate- (4 - 6 points), and high-score (7 - 9 points) groups. The primary and secondary endpoints were heart failure (HF)-related events and acute coronary syndrome (ACS), respectively. Cox proportional hazard models were applied to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and areas under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the prediction of the H 2 FPEF score for adverse outcomes. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 40.46 6.52 months, the primary and secondary endpoints occurred in 168 patients (33.8%) and 97 patients (19.5%), respectively. By the definition of obesity as BMI 25 kg/m 2 , a higher incidence of HF-related events and ACS was observed among those with a higher modified H 2 FPEF score. The modified H 2 FPEF significantly predicted HF-related events (AUC: 0.723; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.676 - 0.770; P &lt; 0.001) and ACS (AUC: 0.670; 95% CI: 0.608 - 0.731; P &lt; 0.014) with higher power than the H 2 FPEF score calculated by BMI 30 kg/m 2 . The cutoff of the modified H 2 FPEF score was 6.5 for detecting HF-related events and ACS. Conclusions: The modified H 2 FPEF score, using BMI 25 kg/m 2 to define obesity, could more effectively predict the occurrence of subsequent cardiovascular events in Chinese HFpEF patients. The modified H 2 FPEF score above 6.5 is a risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events in HFpEF patients. Cardiol Res. 2024;15(5):358-368 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1635

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207