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

Peripartum Cardiomyopathy: Review and Practice Guidelines

2012· review· en· W1995549152 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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