ArticleJACC. Advances2024
The Oxygen Cascade According to HFpEF Likelihood: A Focus on Sex Differences.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in women: a sex-specific clinical review.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Review
- Heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: pathophysiology, clinical assessment, and management of exercise intolerance.European heart journal · 2026Review
- Vascular function in women with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a mismatch beyond diastole.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2025Review
- Sex-Related Determinants of Exercise Intolerance in HFpEF: Not Just a Matter of the Heart!JACC. Advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Women are at greater risk for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare sex differences in the pathophysiology of exertional breathlessness in patients with high vs low HFpEF likelihood. Methods: This cohort study evaluated consecutive patients (n = 1,936) with unexplained dyspnea using cardiopulmonary exercise testing and simultaneous echocardiography and quantified peak oxygen uptake (peak VO Results: The cohort included 1,963 patients (49% women and 28% [n = 555] with a high HFpEF likelihood). HFpEF likelihood did not impact the magnitude of sex differences in peak VO Conclusions: Women with unexplained dyspnea had significantly lower peak VO
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.