MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995549152 · doi:10.4037/ajcc2012163

Peripartum Cardiomyopathy: Review and Practice Guidelines

2012· review· en· W1995549152 on OpenAlexaff
Leah Johnson-Coyle, Louise Jensen, Alan Sobey

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Critical Care · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripartum cardiomyopathyCardiomyopathyMEDLINEIntensive care medicineHeart failureCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peripartum cardiomyopathy, a type of dilated cardiomyopathy of unknown origin, occurs in previously healthy women in the final month of pregnancy and up to 5 months after delivery. Although the incidence is low-less than 0.1% of pregnancies -morbidity and mortality rates are high at 5% to 32%. The outcome of peripartum cardiomyopathy is also highly variable. For some women, the clinical and echocardiographic status improves and sometimes returns to normal, whereas for others, the disease progresses to severe cardiac failure and even sudden cardiac death. In acute care, treatment may involve the use of intravenous vasodilators, inotropic medications, an intra-aortic balloon pump, ventricular-assist devices, and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Survivors of peripartum cardiomyopathy often recover from left ventricular dysfunction; however, they may be at risk for recurrence of heart failure and death in subsequent pregnancies. Women with chronic left ventricular dysfunction should be managed according to guidelines of the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association.

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)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Citations90
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Critical CareSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207