ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2024
Sex Differences in Circulating Biomarkers of Heart Failure.
Review in Current heart failure reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Serum periostin levels in myocardial infarction: Findings from forensic autopsy cases.PloS one · 2026Article
- Unveiling Heart Failure: Gender-Specific Insights and Innovations in Women's Cardiac Health.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Review
- From Natriuretic Peptides to microRNAs: Multi-Analyte Liquid Biopsy Horizons in Heart Failure.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of revsiewEvidence is scaling up for sex differences in heart failure; however, clinical relevance of sex-specific differential thresholds for biomarkers is not clearly known. Current ambiguity warrants a further look into the sex-specific studies on cardiac biomarkers and may facilitate understanding of phenotypic presentations, clinical manifestations, and pathophysiologic pathway differences in men and women. RECENT
findingsRecent studies have confirmed the fact that females have differential threshold for biomarkers, with lower troponin and higher NT proBNP levels. Ambiguity continues to exist in the clinical relevance of ST-2, Galectin 3, and other biomarkers. Novel biomarkers, proteomic biomarkers, and circulating micro RNAs with machine learning are actively being explored. Biomarkers in HFpEF patients with higher female representation are evolving. In recent clinical trials, sex-related difference in biomarkers is not seen despite therapeutic intervention being more effective in females compared to males. Sex-related difference exists in the expression of biomarkers in health and in various disease states of heart failure. However, this differentiation has not effectively translated into the clinical practice in terms of diagnostic studies or prognostication. Active exploration to bridge the knowledge gap and novel technologies can shed more light in this area.
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.