MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408244851 · doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0025

Finerenone for Heart Failure and Risk Estimated by the PREDICT-HFpEF Model

2025· article· en· W4408244851 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsty McDowell, Kieran F. Docherty, Ross T. Campbell, Alasdair D Henderson, Pardeep S. Jhund, Brian Claggett, Akshay S. Desai, James Lay‐Flurrie, Lucas Hofmeister, Andrea Scalise, Carolyn Lam, Mark C. Petrie, Morten Schou, Michele Senni, Sanjiv J. Shah, Jacob A. Udell, Faiez Zannad, Bertram Pitt, Muthiah Vaduganathan, Scott Solomon, John J.V. McMurray

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineEjection fractionPlaceboHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionCardiologyRandomized controlled trialFramingham Risk ScoreCause of deathDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a spectrum of risk, and the effect of therapies may vary by risk. Objectives: To validate the Prognostic Models for Mortality and Morbidity in HFpEF (PREDICT-HFpEF) in the phase 3 randomized clinical trial Finerenone Trial to Investigate Efficacy and Safety Superior to Placebo in Patients With Heart Failure (FINEARTS-HF) and to evaluate the effect of finerenone, compared with placebo, across the spectrum of risk in these patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: The FINEARTS-HF trial was conducted across 653 sites in 37 countries. Participants were adults 40 years and older with symptomatic HF and left ventricular EF of 40% or greater randomized between September 2020 and January 2023. Intervention: Finerenone (titrated to 20 mg or 40 mg) or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 PREDICT-HFpEF risk scores for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, respectively, were calculated. Predicted risk was compared with observed outcomes. Model performance was assessed using the Harrell C statistic. The rates of the predicted outcomes (plus the composite of cardiovascular death and worsening HF events, which was the primary end point in the trial) were examined according to quintiles of risk score, as was the effect of finerenone according to risk quintiles. Results: A total of 6001 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [9.6] years; 3269 male [54.5%]) were randomized in the FINEARTS-HF trial. The C statistics for cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death at 2 years were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.72), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71), and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.67-0.71), respectively. The risk of the composite outcomes was approximately 8- to 10-fold higher in those in the highest compared with the lowest risk quintile. The relative risk reduction with finerenone compared with placebo was consistent across the spectrum of risk for all outcomes examined (eg, interaction P value for primary outcome = .24). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of the FINEARTS-HF randomized clinical trial demonstrate that the PREDICT-HFpEF models performed well in terms of calibration and discrimination. Baseline risk did not modify the benefit of finerenone. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04435626.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA CardiologySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207