MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phenomapping in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction to Identify Subpopulations With High Residual Risk: A VICTORIA Substudy

2025· article· en· W4414930695 on OpenAlexaff
Palak Shah, Yinggan Zheng, Burkert Pieske, Vojtěch Melenovský, Carolyn S.P. Lam, Karen Sliwa, Javed Butler, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Christopher R. deFilippi, Christopher M. O’Connor, Roopinder K. Sandhu, Lothar Roessig, Jasper Tromp, Cynthia M. Westerhout, Adriaan A. Voors, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGDF15 and Related Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureEjection fractionStroke volumeHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have a high residual risk for heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death. We aimed to use multimodality data to identify unique HFrEF subgroups with high residual risk. METHODS: In this VICTORIA substudy (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), clinical, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, quantitative biomarker, and targeted proteomics data were collected. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering was performed using 105 variables to define HFrEF phenogroups. Cox regression estimated the relationship between the HFrEF phenogroups and the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. External validation of the phenogroups was performed in the BIOSTAT-CHF cohort (Biology Study to Tailored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure). Multinomial logistic regression identified the most important variables in defining the HFrEF phenogroups. RESULTS: There were 564 participants; after clustering, the optimal number of HFrEF phenogroups was 3. Phenogroup 1 was young, well-treated with guideline-directed medical therapy, and least likely to have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Phenogroup 2 had the highest prevalence of atrial fibrillation and pathological Q-waves on electrocardiography. Phenogroup 3 was older, had more biventricular dysfunction, and had advanced renal disease. A stepwise increase in the risk of the primary composite outcome was observed from HFrEF phenogroup 1 to 3 (hazard ratio, 7.0 [95% CI, 4.1–12.0]; P ≤0.01). The phenogroups were externally validated in BIOSTAT-CHF, and phenogroup 3 had similar patient characteristics (eg, older with more significant renal dysfunction) and had the highest event rate at 1 year (41% [95% CI, 38%–45%]). After multinomial regression, GDF-15 (growth differentiation factor 15) was the most important variable in discriminating the 3 HFrEF phenogroups in both VICTORIA and BIOSTAT-CHF. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and externally validated unique HFrEF subpopulations with shared biological characteristics that differentiated residual risk for cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. GDF-15 was the most important protein used to distinguish the 3 HFrEF phenogroups. These findings may inform study entry criteria for future HFrEF trials focused on the development of novel therapeutics. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicGDF15 and Related BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207