MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1865540254 · doi:10.1111/1440-1681.12418

B‐type natriuretic peptide and heart failure: what can we learn from clinical trials?

2015· review· en· W1865540254 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian Binoun‐A‐Egom, Angelo Andreas, Ján Klimas, Vanda Valentová, Peter Kružliak, Emmanuel E. Egom

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsNatriuresisMedicineNatriuretic peptideDiuresisHeart failureClinical trialIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCardiologyRenal function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) may favour natriuresis and diuresis, making it an ideal drug to aid in diuresing a fluid-overloaded patient with poor or worsening renal function. Several randomized clinical trials have tested the hypothesis that infusions of pharmacological doses of BNP to acute heart failure (HF) patients may enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in this clinical setting. Unfortunately, none of these has resulted in a better outcome. The current challenge for BNP research in acute HF lies in a failure of concept and reluctance to abandon a demonstrably ineffectual research model. Future success will necessitate a detailed understanding of the mechanism of action of BNP as well as a better integration of basic and clinical science.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental Pharmacology and PhysiologySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207