MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014806149 · doi:10.1097/hco.0b013e32834fdc98

Recent advances in the management of chronic heart failure

2012· review· en· W2014806149 on OpenAlexaff
Haissam Haddad, Lisa Mielniczuk, Ross A. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart rate and cardiovascular health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIvabradineMedicineHeart failureManagement of heart failureCardiac resynchronization therapyCardiologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAldosteroneSpironolactoneHeart rateEjection fractionBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will provide an overview of the recent advances in the management of chronic heart failure, with special focus on major publications in the past 2 years, 2010-2011. RECENT FINDINGS: In the past 1-2 years, there have been a number of publications that promise to make a major difference in patient management and outcome in heart failure. These include two clinical trials in patients with less symptomatic heart failure, namely the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and eplerinone, an aldosterone receptor antagonist, and another study using ivabradine, which belongs to a new class of If channel blocking drugs used for heart rate reduction in patients with moderate heart failure. The evolving role of telemedicine in remote management of patients with heart failure is reviewed. SUMMARY: New data demonstrate the benefit of CRT and aldosterone antagonists in milder heart failure, the benefit of ivabradine in moderate heart failure with heart rate of 70 or more, and the potential role of telemedicine.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicHeart rate and cardiovascular healthFrench-language works237,207