ArticleESC heart failure2017
Differentiating heart failure phenotypes using sex-specific transcriptomic and proteomic biomarker panels.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03575910 (HEARTBiT), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
HEARTBiT: A Novel Multi-Marker Blood Test for Management of Acute Cardiac Allograft Rejection
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Natriuretic peptides for the detection of diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction-a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Risk of bias in studies investigating novel diagnostic biomarkers for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. A systematic review.European journal of heart failure · 2020Pooled it
- Heart Failure Syndromes: Different Definitions of Different Diseases-Do We Need Separate Guidelines? A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Biomarkers of lung congestion and injury in acute heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2025Review
- Potential of plasma biomarkers for heart failure prediction, management, and prognosis: A multiomics perspective.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Identifying plasma proteomic signatures from health to heart failure, across the ejection fraction spectrum.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Using Omics to Identify Novel Therapeutic Targets in Heart Failure.Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2024Review
- Beyond Natriuretic Peptides: Unveiling the Power of Emerging Biomarkers in Heart Failure.Biomolecules · 2024Review
- Biomarkers for the diagnosis and management of heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2022Review
- Developmental toxicant exposures and sex-specific effects on epigenetic programming and cardiovascular health across generations.Environmental epigenetics · 2022Review
- Circulating heart failure biomarkers beyond natriuretic peptides: review from the Biomarker Study Group of the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC).European journal of heart failure · 2021Review
- The Value of IGF-1 and IGFBP-1 in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced, Mid-range, and Preserved Ejection Fraction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar.ESC heart failure · 2019Article
- Biomarkers in heart failure: the past, current and future.Heart failure reviews · 2019Review
- Open access efforts begin to bloom: ESC Heart Failure gets full attention and first impact factor.ESC heart failure · 2019Review
- Article
- Modeling cardiac complexity: Advancements in myocardial models and analytical techniques for physiological investigation and therapeutic developmentAPL bioengineering · 2019Review
- Transcriptomics of cardiac biopsies reveals differences in patients with or without diagnostic parameters for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Biomarkers in Routine Heart Failure Clinical Care.Cardiac failure review · 2019Review
- Biomarkers, myocardial fibrosis and co-morbidities in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: an overview.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for 30-50% of patients with heart failure (HF). A major obstacle in HF management is the difficulty in differentiating between HFpEF and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) using conventional clinical and laboratory investigations. The aim of this study is to develop robust transcriptomic and proteomic biomarker signatures that can differentiate HFpEF from HFrEF. METHODS AND
resultsA total of 210 HF patients were recruited in participating institutions from the Alberta HEART study. An expert clinical adjudicating panel differentiated between patients with HFpEF and HFrEF. The discovery cohort consisted of 61 patients, and the replication cohort consisted of 70 patients. Transcriptomic and proteomic data were analysed to find panels of differentiating HFpEF from HFrEF. In the discovery cohort, a 22-transcript panel was found to differentiate HFpEF from HFrEF in male patients with a cross-validation AUC of 0.74, as compared with 0.70 for N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in those same patients. An ensemble of the transcript panel and NT-pro-BNP yielded a cross-validation AUC of 0.80. This performance improvement was also observed in the replication cohort. An ensemble of the transcriptomic panel with NT-proBNP produced a replication AUC of 0.90, as compared with 0.74 for NT-proBNP alone and 0.73 for the transcriptomic panel.
conclusionsWe have identified a male-specific transcriptomic biomarker panel that can differentiate between HFpEF and HFrEF. These biosignatures could be further replicated on other patients and potentially be developed into a blood test for better management of HF patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.