MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Gender differences in all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure and stroke

2025· article· en· W7127920928 on OpenAlexaff
Alfredo José Mansur, J M D C Sa, D P S Martins, M E Bergamo, C H Del Carlo, S D Avakian, E A Bocchi, A C Pereira-Barreto

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEjection fractionHeart failureStroke (engine)Atrial fibrillationProportional hazards modelMyocardial infarctionvalvular heart diseaseCardiomyopathyIncidence (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose to analyse gender differences in all-cause mortality in patients with HF and previous stroke. Methods From February 2017 to January 2022, we analysed mortality and predictors of all-cause death in women and men with HF. Baseline data included clinical features and echocardiographic findings. The analysed comorbidities were previous stroke, previous myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AF), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We used the Kaplan-Meier method (K-M) and Cox proportional hazards methods to analyse mortality rates. Predictors of death were obtained using the score chi-square of Cox regression. Results We analysed, in a mean follow-up period of 2.2±0.9 years, 11,282 patients with a mean age of 63.9 ± 14.4 years, and 6,256 (55.4%) were men. Patients with previous strokes were older (66.1±13.7 vs. 63.8±14.4 years; p<0.0001), had lower initial left ventricular ejection fraction (44.4 ±16.4% vs. 46.3±16%; p=0.009), and greater initial left ventricular diastolic diameter (58.5±10.4 vs. 57.2±9.6 mm; p=0.010). The prevalence of ischemic cardiomyopathy was higher in men (p=0.010), while hypertensive cardiomyopathy (CMP) (p=0.029) and valvular CMP (p=0.025) were more prevalent in women. The prevalence of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was higher in men (p<0.001), whereas heart failure with preserved ejection fraction was more common in women (p<0.001). The cumulative incidence of death was higher in men without stroke (p=0.040) compared to women without stroke, and in women with stroke (p<0.001) compared to men with stroke (Figure). Cox regression for death, adjusted for age, gender, initial LVEF, ischemic CMP, idiopathic CMP, hypertensive CMP, valvular CMP, diabetes, CKD, AF, and stroke, showed, in decreasing order of importance, CKD [HR=2.76 (95% CI: 2.51-3.03); p<0.001], stroke [HR=2.49 (95% CI: 2.20-2.81); p<0.001], diabetes [HR=2.06 (95% CI: 1.88-2.26); p<0.001], AF [HR=1.87 (95% CI: 1.71-2.04); p<0.001], age [HR=1.02 (95% CI: 1.01-1.02); p<0.001], LVEF [HR=0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.81); p<0.001], and valvular CMP [HR=1.65 (95% CI: 1.45-1.87); p<0.001] as independent variables for death in the total population. For patients with HF and stroke, Cox regression adjusted for the same variables showed CKD [HR=1.43 (95% CI: 1.12-1.83); p<0.001], valvular CMP [HR=1.71 (95% CI: 1.25-2.36); p=0.001], diabetes [HR=1.51 (95% CI: 1.19-1.92); p=0.001], LVEF [HR=0.75 (95% CI: 0.66-0.86); p=0.001], and age [HR=1.02 (95% CI: 1.01-1.03); p=0.005] as independent variables for death. Conclusion Stroke was one of the leading independent variables associated with mortality from all causes in the analysed sample, with a particularly unfavourable prognosis in patients with valvular CMP and in women with stroke. These findings highlight the importance of preventive and therapeutic strategies aimed at reducing the impact of stroke, especially in high-risk populations.Figure

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 Journal→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→