MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409702046 · doi:10.1161/jaha.124.038872

Prognostic Significance of Nutritional Scores in Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From the PARAGON‐HF Trial

2025· article· en· W4409702046 on OpenAlexaff
Henri Lu, Brian Claggett, Masatoshi Minamisawa, John W. Ostrominski, Alberto Foà, Maria Pabón, Arzu Kalaycı, Muthiah Vaduganathan, Maja Čikeš, Amil M. Shah, Akshay S. Desai, John J.V. McMurray, Pardeep S. Jhund, Milton Packer, Marty Lefkowitz, Jean L. Rouleau, Michael R. Zile, Faı̈ez Zannad, Sheila M. Hegde, Scott D. Solomon, Hicham Skali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) and Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) are indices that identify individuals at risk of malnutrition. Our study sought to examine the incidence and prognostic implications of abnormal CONUT and/or GNRI in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CONUT score and GNRI were serially analyzed in this post hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. A CONUT score >2 or GNRI ≤98 was considered to be abnormal. The association between abnormal CONUT and/or GNRI (analyzed using a time-updated approach) and total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was analyzed. Other outcomes included cardiovascular death, all-cause death, total heart failure hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, and first noncardiovascular hospitalization. We also explored the effect of incident hospitalization on subsequent incident abnormal CONUT and/or GNRI. In 4794 patients (55% women, mean age 72±8 years), 1119 (23.3%) had at least 1 abnormal score at randomization. Among the remaining 3675 patients, 1405 (38.2%) developed at least 1 abnormal score over a median follow-up of 2.9 years. Any abnormal score during follow-up was associated with a significantly higher risk of fatal and nonfatal outcomes, and all types of hospitalizations (all-cause, heart failure, and noncardiovascular hospitalizations). Among patients with normal scores at randomization, any hospitalization during follow-up was associated with a significantly higher risk of developing at least 1 abnormal score posthospitalization, compared with prehospitalization and never-hospitalized patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.22-1.55]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the rate of individuals with abnormal CONUT and/or GNRI was high, especially following a heart failure hospitalization, and was linked with excess cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.290
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207