MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Blood cell counts as a source of evidence for prognostic information in patients with acute heart failure: findings from a large, single-centre study

2025· article· en· W7127621109 on OpenAlexaff
A Iaconelli, A Forni, M Busti, L Cacioli, Christian Cardile, L Sanasi, L Sensini, Antonio De Vita, A Piccioni, D Della Polla, Giuseppe De Matteis, Jacopo Lenkowicz, F Franceschi, M Covino

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureProportional hazards modelContext (archaeology)Observational studyCohortCohort studyRed blood cell distribution widthRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Inflammatory processes are increasingly recognised as pivotal in the pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) and several inflammatory biomarkers have emerged as potential tools for predicting adverse outcomes in patients with chronic HF. Red blood cell distribution width (RDW), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) are easy to obtain, inexpensive and rapidly available through routine blood tests. Their combined assessment may represent a valuable tool for predicting prognosis in the context of acute heart failure (AHF). Aims To assess the prognostic utility of RDW, NLR, MLR and PLR in a cohort of inpatients with AHF. Methods In this single-centre, observational study, data from patients admitted to our hospital between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2023 were retrospectively collected. AHF was diagnosed according to the updated European Society of Cardiology guidelines. RDW, NLR, MLR and PLR measurements were considered elevated if values exceeded 14.6%, 2, 0.4 and 137, respectively. Participants were stratified into five cohorts according to the number of increased biomarkers reported (none, 1, 2, 3, or 4). Baseline characteristics and echocardiographic measurements were assessed for each group. Independent predictors of RDW, NLR, MLR and PLR were identified using linear regression analysis and the association between different cohorts and outcomes was assessed using Cox proportional hazards analysis. The outcomes were the composite of all-cause mortality or readmission due to heart failure (HF) and all-cause mortality at 90 days after discharge. Results A total of 8,127 patients, aged 81 years, of whom 4,312 (53%) men, were enrolled. Only 260 (3%) participants had normal biomarker levels, while 1,031 (13%), 1,717 (21%), 2,654 (33%) and 2,465 (30%) had 1, 2, 3 or all biomarkers elevated, respectively. Patients with higher biomarker levels were older, more likely to be male, had a higher prevalence of diabetes and hypertension and exhibited greater N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements. RDW, NLR, MLR and PLR were found to be independent predictors of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or rehospitalisation due to HF, as well as all-cause mortality. Compared with the cohort of patients with all normal biomarkers, those with increased biomarker levels presented a greater risk of developing adverse events, both in univariate and multivariate analyses. Conclusions RDW, NLR, MLR and PLR are frequently elevated in patients diagnosed with acute HF. Each biomarker independently predicts adverse events and their combination may be adopted as a valid tool to provide prognostic information.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease PrognosisFrench-language works237,207