Following this puts new work involving it at the top of your briefing, with a note saying why it is there. Links are taken from the source record, never inferred.
A prospective cohort study with clear methodology and meaningful effect sizes in a clinically relevant population, but limited by single-centre design, lack of blinding, and reliance on a non-standard sarcopenia definition that requires external validation.
This is a systematic evidence mapping and reclassification study of case reports and small series, not a primary clinical trial or high-quality meta-analysis; it documents diagnostic patterns in published literature rather than prospective outcomes.
A narrative review synthesizing evidence from multiple RCTs to support contemporary treatment recommendations for HFmrEF and HFpEF, reflecting current European and American guideline positions.
Cross-sectional analysis of baseline cohort data with null primary findings and exploratory sex-stratified subgroup results that the authors themselves designate as hypothesis-generating and requiring confirmation.