MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415608456 · doi:10.7717/peerj.20168

Diagnostic and prognostic implications of growth differentiation factor 15 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415608456 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iwan Dakota, Matthew Aldo Wijayanto, Annisa Salsabilla Dwi Nugrahani, Angela Felicia Sunjaya, Shela Rachmayanti, Enny Yuliana Indah, Natasya Naomi, Wilbert Huang, Christopher Daniel Tristan, Mira Fauziah, Hary Sakti Muliawan, Bambang Budi Siswanto

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGDF15 and Related Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionGDF15Risk factorProportional hazards model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), an emerging biomarker associated with chronic inflammation and oxidative stress, shows potential diagnostic and prognostic significance for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study aimed to assess the diagnostic and prognostic value of GDF-15 in HFpEF. Methods Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) were used to search for relevant literature published before August 6, 2024. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and its adaptation for cross-sectional studies. Statistical analysis was performed using RStudio version 4.4.1. All meta-analyses employed a random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the leave-one-out technique to evaluate the influence of individual studies on pooled estimates. This study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024569609). Results A total of 5,696 HFpEF patients were identified from 28,193 individuals across 12 observational studies. GDF-15 levels were consistently elevated in HFpEF patients, with a pooled mean difference (MD) of 647.60 pg/mL (95% CI [148.43–1,146.77]; p = 0.01). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of this finding, with a slightly higher MD observed when studies involving HFpEF patients with atrial fibrillation were excluded. Qualitative analysis suggested that the overall diagnostic performance of GDF-15 in HFpEF is slightly superior to conventional biomarkers. GDF-15 showed a pooled area under the curve (AUC) of 0.82 (95% CI [0.72–0.91]), indicating good diagnostic accuracy. Additionally, GDF-15 was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalisation, with pooled hazard ratios (HR) of 1.46 (95% CI [1.30–1.62]; p < 0.01) and 1.76 (95% CI [1.30–2.38]; p < 0.01), respectively. Conclusion GDF-15 demonstrates significant diagnostic and prognostic potential for HFpEF. Elevated GDF-15 levels are associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalisation.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.322
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venuePeerJSame topicGDF15 and Related BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207