Evaluating the Prognostic Value of the Modified H<sub>2</sub>FPEF Score in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 < 0.001) and ACS (AUC: 0.670; 95% CI: 0.608 - 0.731; P < 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".