MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413831478 · doi:10.1161/jaha.125.043058

External Validation of the REACT‐HF Score for Predicting Heart Failure in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

2025· article· en· W4413831478 on OpenAlexaff
Giorgio Moschovitis, Elia Rigamonti, Andrea Wiencierz, Michael Coslovsky, Steffen Blum, Maria Luisa De Perna, Patrizia Mayer‐Melchiorre, Giuseppe Vassalli, Giovanni Pedrazzini, Jeff S. Healey, Tobias Reichlin, Nicolas Rodondi, Andreas Müller, Jürg H. Beer, Giulio Conte, Mirah J. Stuber, Matthias Schwenkglenks, Felix Mahfoud, Christian Sticherling, David Conen, Stefan Osswald, Michael Kühne, Philipp Krisai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationHeart failureInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Validated risk prediction scores for incident heart failure (HF) in patients with atrial fibrillation are lacking. We aimed to externally validate the the HF prediction risk score derived from three large control randomized trials RE-LY, AVERROES, and ACTIVE-A (REACT-HF) score and assess potential improvements by incorporating biomarkers. METHODS: We included 2599 patients with atrial fibrillation without prior HF from the Swiss-AF (Swiss Atrial Fibrillation) and BEAT-AF (Basel Atrial Fibrillation) cohorts. We estimated the C statistics of the REACT-HF score with Cox proportional hazards models and improved prediction by adding hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein), NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), and high-sensitivity troponin T. The primary outcome was incident HF hospitalization within 2 years. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, a composite of incident HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death, and all-cause death. RESULTS: The mean age was 70.2±10.3 years, 29.1% were women, and 54.8% had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Across risk score quintiles, the incidence rates per 100 patient-years increased for the primary outcome (0.27, 0.54, 1.00, 2.24, 5.49), cardiovascular death (0.00, 0.11, 0.10, 0.91, 2.01), the composite of cardiovascular death and first HF hospitalization (0.27, 0.65, 1.10, 3.09, 6.86), and all-cause death (0.00, 0.65, 0.40, 1.56, 4.10). The estimated C statistic (95% CI) for the primary outcome was 0.76 (0.72-0.81). C statistics for the secondary outcomes were consistent. The biomarker-enhanced model, including hs-CRP and NT-proBNP, improved the C statistic to 0.84 (0.80-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In this external validation, the REACT-HF risk score demonstrated good discrimination for predicting the first HF hospitalization within 2 years of follow-up. The addition of NT-proBNP and hs-CRP further improved the score. The REACT-HF score may help identify patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for HF, aiding in preventive therapy.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→