Oral Diuretic Intensification as a Worsening Heart Failure Event in the Primary Outcome of Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractAlthough evidence-based therapies for patients with heart failure (HF) have decreased all-cause mortality, the residual risk of other clinically relevant outcomes - such as worsening HF - remains high. In this context, contemporary HF trials have increasingly employed composite primary outcomes that include worsening HF, commonly defined as episodes resulting in hospitalization for HF or urgent ambulatory visits with use of intravenous HF pharmacotherapies. In this Clinical Trials Workshop, we propose that the definition of worsening HF in clinical trials be expanded to include HF episodes treated with ambulatory oral diuretic intensification (ODI). Using previously reported post hoc analyses of pharmacotherapy trials in chronic HF, we highlight the prognostic significance of ODI and examine the implications of including ODI on anticipated event rates and estimated treatment effect. We propose a standardized definition of ODI and discuss challenges and regulatory considerations of incorporating ODI into HF trial end points.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".