MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1771553789 · doi:10.1139/y11-036

Tailored therapy for heart failure: neurohormones

2011· review· en· W1771553789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurohormonesHeart failureInternal medicineMedicineCardiologyEndocrinologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasma B type cardiac natriuretic peptides reflect cardiac structure and function and have proven roles in assisting in the diagnosis of acute heart failure. They are also powerful independent prognostic indicators across the full spectrum of cardiovascular disease. The efficacy of serial measurements of plasma B type peptides in guiding titration of therapy for chronic heart failure has been the subject of a number of randomized controlled trials. These are summarized in the following brief review. In the decade 2000-2010, 8 trials have been completed. Study design, the characteristics of the heart failure population studied, duration of follow-up, the exact end points recorded, and target peptide levels pursued all differ somewhat between trials. However, an overall consistency is emerging, supported by 2 metaanalyses. In aggregate, the existing trial data suggest that adjustment of treatment in chronic heart failure according to serial B type peptide measurements used in conjunction with established clinical methods is likely to reduce cardiac mortality and admissions with heart failure, at least in those patients aged under 75 years with impaired left ventricular systolic function.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→