ArticleHerz2026
Diagnostic significance of H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores with oncostatin M levels in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Article in Herz, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Strengths and limitations of HFpEF probability scores in the era of precision medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents approximately half of all heart failure cases, and its prevalence is rising with an aging population and increasing comorbidities. Diagnosis is challenging due to heterogeneous clinical features and nonspecific symptoms. To improve diagnostic accuracy, scores such as the HFA-PEFF (Heart Failure Association Pre-test Assessment, Echocardiography & Natriuretic Peptide, Functional Testing, Final Etiology) and H2FPEF have been proposed. Oncostatin M (OSM), a cytokine of the interleukin‑6 family, is involved in cardiac inflammation, fibrosis, and remodeling, but its diagnostic role in HFpEF remains unclear.
methodsThis single-center, cross-sectional study enrolled 71 patients with suspected HF symptoms (dyspnea, fatigue, edema) and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%. Demographic, laboratory, and echocardiographic data were recorded. HFpEF likelihood was assessed using the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores. Serum OSM levels were measured, and patients were classified into low-intermediate- and high-risk groups.
resultsMean patient age was 67.0 years (63.4% female). In the high-risk H2FPEF group, only hypertension showed a significant association (p = 0.032). By contrast, the high-risk HFA-PEFF group showed higher left atrial volume index, left ventricular mass index, and E/e' ratio; NT-proBNP and OSM levels were also significantly increased (51.3 vs. 14.4 pg/mL; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that OSM had strong discriminatory power for the HFA-PEFF but not the H2FPEF score.
conclusionSerum OSM levels correlated more strongly with the HFA-PEFF score, which incorporates structural and functional cardiac parameters. Thus, OSM may serve as a complementary biomarker to improve HFpEF diagnosis when used with the HFA-PEFF scoring system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41528452What 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.