MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405912176 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae868

Sex-specific risk factors for new-onset heart failure: the PREVEND study at 25 years

2024· article· en· W4405912176 on OpenAlexaff
Bart J. van Essen, Johanna E. Emmens, Jasper Tromp, Wouter Ouwerkerk, Marcelle D. Smit, Christiane A Geluk, Lukas Baumhove, Navin Suthahar, Ron T. Gansevoort, Stephan J. L. Bakker, Kevin Damman, Peter van der Meer, Rudolf A. de Boer, Dirk J. van Veldhuisen, Adriaan A. Voors

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersEuropean Research CouncilNierstichtingHartstichting
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current estimates for the lifetime risk to develop heart failure with either a reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and their associated risk factors are derived from two studies from the USA. The sex-specific lifetime risk and population attributable fraction of potentially modifiable risk factors for incident HFpEF and HFrEF are described in a large European community-based cohort with 25 years of follow-up. METHODS: A total of 8558 participants from the PREVEND cohort were studied at baseline from 1997 onwards and followed until 2022 for cases of new-onset HFrEF (ejection fraction < 50%) and HFpEF (ejection fraction ≥ 50%) by assessment of hospital records. RESULTS: A total of 804 cases of new-onset HF were identified (534 HFrEF and 270 HFpEF) during 25 years of follow-up. The mean age at baseline was 50 years for men and 47 years for women. The mean age at onset of HF was 72.1 years in men and 74.2 years in women. The overall lifetime risk of developing HF was 24.5% in men compared to 23.3% in women. The lifetime risk of HFrEF was lower in women compared with men (11.9% vs. 18.1%), while the lifetime risk of HFpEF was higher in women compared with men (11.5% vs. 6.4%). In women, 71% of incident HFrEF cases were attributable to eight risk factors (hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, obesity, smoking, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, myocardial infarction, and diabetes mellitus) and 60% in men. In women, 64% of incident HFpEF cases were attributable to those risk factors, whereas this was 46% in men. More specifically, in both men and women, hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia were the strongest risk factors for HFrEF, whereas hypertension and obesity were the strongest risk factors for HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: In this European cohort, the lifetime risk of developing HFrEF was greater in men than in women, while women were at greater risk of developing HFpEF. Eight directly and indirectly modifiable risk factors substantially accounted for the risk of developing HFrEF and HFpEF, particularly in women.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations47
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207