Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,188

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and Prospective Validation of a Clinical Index to Predict Survival in Ambulatory Patients Referred for Cardiac Transplant Evaluation

Aaronson, Keith D., Schwartz, J. Sanford, Chen, Tze-Ming, Wong, Kar-Lai, Goin, James E., Mancini, Donna M.·1997·Circulation
DOI 10.1161/01.cir.95.12.2660
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Risk stratification of patients with end-stage congestive heart failure is a critical component of the transplant candidate selection process. Accurate identification of individuals most likely to survive without a transplant would facilitate more efficient use of scarce donor organs. Methods and Results Multivariable proportional hazards survival models were developed with the use of data on 80 clinical characteristics from 268 ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure (derivation sample). Invasive and noninvasive models (with and without catheterization-derived data) were constructed. A prognostic score was determined for each patient from each model. Stratum-specific likelihood ratios were used to develop three prognostic-score risk groups. The models were prospectively validated on 199 similar patients (validation sample) by calculation of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for 1-year event-free survival, the censored c-index for event-free survival, and comparison of event-free survival curves for prognostic-score risk strata. Outcome events were defined as urgent transplant or death without transplant. The noninvasive model performed well in both samples, and increased performance was not attained by the addition of catheterization-derived variables. Prognostic-score risk groups derived from the noninvasive model in the derivation sample effectively stratified the risk of an outcome event in both samples (1-year event-free survival for derivation and validation samples, respectively: low risk, 93% and 88%; medium risk, 72% and 60%; high risk, 43% and 35%). Conclusions Selection of candidates for cardiac transplantation may be improved by use of this noninvasive risk-stratification model.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.95.12.2660

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Aaronson, K. D., Schwartz, J. S., Chen, T.-M., Wong, K.-L., Goin, J. E., & Mancini, D. M.
Venue
Circulation
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1997-06-17
Volume
95
Issue
12
Pages
2660-2667
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
DOI
10.1161/01.cir.95.12.2660
OpenAlex
W2079132293
Cited by
1,188
References
8
FWCI
17.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.