MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966172081 · doi:10.3109/07853890.2012.660493

Update on diastolic heart failure or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the older adults

2012· review· en· W1966172081 on OpenAlexaff
Kannayiram Alagiakrishnan, Maciej Banach, Linda G. Jones, Subrata Datta, Ali Ahmed, Wilbert S. Aronow

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionMedicineCardiologyHeart failureInternal medicineEjection fractionDiastoleDiastolic heart failureLeft ventricular hypertrophyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nearly half of all heart failure (HF) patients have diastolic HF (DHF) or clinical HF with normal or near-normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Although the terminology has not been clearly defined, it is increasingly being referred to as HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). The prevalence of HFPEF increases with age, especially among older women. Identifying HFPEF is important because the etiology, pathogenesis, prognosis, and optimal management may differ from that for systolic HF (SHF) or HF with reduced ejection fraction. The clinical presentation of HF is similar for both SHF and HFPEF. As in SHF, HFPEF is a clinical diagnosis. Once a clinical diagnosis of HF has been made, the presence of HFPEF can be established by confirming a normal or near-normal LVEF, often by an echocardiogram. HFPEF is often associated with a history of hypertension, concentric left ventricular hypertrophy, vascular stiffness, and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. As in SHF, HFPEF is also associated with poor outcomes. While therapies with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers improve outcomes in SHF, there is currently no such evidence of their benefits in older HFPEF patients. In this review recent advances in the diagnosis and management of HFPEF in older adults are discussed.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations65
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of MedicineSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207