ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Development and Validation of Imaging-Free Myocardial Fibrosis Prediction Models, Association with Outcomes, and Sample Size Estimation for Phase 3 Trials.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhase 3 trials testing whether pharmacologic interventions targeting myocardial fibrosis improve outcomes require myocardial fibrosis measurement that does not rely on tomographic imaging with intravenous contrast.
methodsWe developed and externally validated extracellular volume (ECV) prediction models incorporating readily available data (comorbidity and natriuretic peptide variables), excluding tomographic imaging variables. Associations between predicted ECV and incident outcomes (death or hospitalization for heart failure) were tested in survival analysis. We created various sample size estimates for a hypothetical therapeutic clinical trial testing an antifibrotic therapy using (1) predicted ECV, (2) measured ECV, or (3) no ECV.
resultsMultivariable models predicting ECV had reasonable discrimination (optimism corrected C-statistic for predicted ECV ≥27%, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.75-0.80] in the derivation cohort [n=1663] and 0.74 [95% CI, 0.71-0.76] in the validation cohort [n=1578]) and reasonable calibration. Predicted ECV associated with adverse outcomes in Cox regression models: ECV ≥27% (binary variable) hazard ratio 2.21 (95% CI, 1.84-2.66). For a hypothetical clinical trial with an inclusion criterion of ECV ≥27%, use of predicted ECV (with probability threshold of 0.69 and 80% specificity) compared with measured ECV would obviate the need to perform 3940 cardiac magnetic resonance scans, at the cost of an additional 3052 participants screened and 705 participants enrolled.
conclusionsPredicted ECV (derived without tomographic imaging) associates with outcomes and efficiently identifies vulnerable patients who might benefit from treatment. Predicted ECV may foster the design of phase 3 trials targeting myocardial fibrosis with higher numbers of screened and enrolled participants, but with simplified eligibility criteria, avoiding the complexity of tomographic imaging.
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.