MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409871401 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf270

Risk calculator of multimorbid risk of rehospitalization and death from heart failure: including the contribution of the gut microbiome

2025· article· en· W4409871401 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Zubair Israr, Andrea Salzano, Hong Zhan, Adriaan A. Voors, Leong L. Ng, Toru Suzuki

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
FundersNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research CentreMedical Research CouncilBarwon Health FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchJapan Heart FoundationFondation LeducqEuropean CommissionMedical Research CentreBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsMedicineFramingham Risk ScoreHeart failureInternal medicineCohortRisk assessmentLogistic regressionDiabetes mellitusCardiologyIntensive care medicineEndocrinologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The elucidation of the contributory role of multimorbidity to heart failure (HF) including the gut-heart axis has added a new dimension to our understanding of HF pathophysiology that is not reflected in currently available risk scores. The present investigation aimed to develop and validate a novel risk score model of multimorbidity for HF risk stratification. METHODS AND RESULTS: A risk model was developed based on the contribution of markers associated with HF multimorbidities on outcomes of mortality and/or rehospitalization due to HF (death/HF) at one year. Two independent HF cohorts were combined and randomly split 70:30 using a split-sample validation approach for training and validation cohorts that were not significantly different for investigated variables. Backward logistic regression was used to develop the risk model with a further scoring system to create a simple risk calculator. A final 11-variable risk model (age, previous HF hospitalization, NYHA group III/IV, NT-proBNP, diastolic blood pressure, loop diuretic use, beta-blocker non-use, creatinine, COPD, diabetes, and combined gut metabolites) showed a diagnostic performance of 0.71 in the training cohort (C-statistic validation cohort, 0.70, P < 0.001). A risk score/calculator was further developed based on this model with categorization into three (low-, mid-, and high-) and two (low- and high-) risk groups, with both approaches demonstrating increased incidence of death/HF in patients at the highest risk (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A novel risk model and score were derived that showed the contribution of comorbidities including the added value of the gut-heart axis on risk stratification of HF patients on rehospitalization and death. LAY SUMMARY: The contributory role of multimorbidity is not well understood in heart failure (HF), including the more recent addition of the gut microbiome (gut-heart axis). However, in current HF risk scores, the contributory role of multimorbidity is seldom considered. In this study, we developed an 11-variable risk model and a simple risk score calculator for clinical use that considers the contribution of HF multimorbidity, including the gut microbiome. The clinical risk score was developed and validated in a clinical cohort from two combined independent European studies from inpatient heart failure subjects. The outcomes were death due to HF and/or rehospitalization at 1 year. The final model showed diagnostic performance comparable to current HF risk scores. Furthermore, the risk score calculator, developed for clinical use, is able to stratify patients into low-, mid-, and high-risk groups, with worsening outcomes seen with increasing risk group. The importance and novelty of this risk model over current HF risk scores are the contribution of comorbidities including the added value of the gut-heart axis on HF risk stratification.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207