MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W169832666

Abstract 3170: Acute Heart Failure: What Doesn’t Get Admitted May Come Back To Haunt You

2006· article· en· W169832666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin A. Ezekowitz, Wei-Ching Chang, Cynthia M. Westerhout, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureEmergency departmentSpironolactonePopulationMedical prescriptionCohortEmergency medicineInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Previous epidemiologic studies of acute heart failure (AHF) have involved patients admitted to hospital therefore failing to account for an unknown proportion of pts discharged directly from the emergency department (ED). We evaluated discharge vs. admission rates of AHF pts as well as changes in evidence-based medication (EBM) prescriptions and whether their outcomes, including mortality, differed from those who were admitted. Methods: A population-based cohort was analyzed including all pts ≥65 years presenting to Alberta EDs with a most responsible diagnosis of heart failure (ICD9-CM 428.x) between 1998 and 2001. Pts were either discharged from the ED (DCED) or admitted to hospital (HOSP). Data includes procedures (angiogram, PCI, CABG, echo, nuclear, exercise tests, pacemakers), EBMs (ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, spironolactone) and socioeconomic data, repeat ED (re-ED) visits, inpatient admissions (hosp and re-hosp) and death. Results: Of 4652 AHF pts evaluated in the ED, 29% were DCED ...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→