MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038895717 · doi:10.1016/j.ejheart.2004.10.003

Clinical Trials Update from the Heart Failure Society of America: EMOTE, HERB-CHF, BEST genetic Sub-Study and RHYTHM-ICD

2004· review· en· W2038895717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Krishna Lalukota, John G.F. Cleland, Lee Ingle, Andrew L. Clark, A Coletta

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnoximoneMedicineHeart failureInotropeCardiologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialHeart RhythmIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article summarises key presentations relevant to the pathophysiology, prevention or treatment of heart failure, from the Heart Failure Society of America annual meeting held in Toronto, Canada. Data from the EnoxiMone in intravenous inOTropE-dependent subjects (EMOTE) study suggest that the oral PDE-3 inhibitor enoximone may be effective for weaning severe heart failure patients from intravenous inotropic therapy. Hawthorn Extract Randomised Blinded Trial in CHF (HERB-CHF) failed to show a benefit of hawthorn extract added to conventional heart failure therapy. A genetic sub-group analysis of the Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST) study showed that bucindolol reduced mortality and hospitalisations in patients who were homozygous for the Arg389 variant of the beta(1) adrenoceptor. In the Resynchronisation Hemodynamic Treatment for Heart Failure Management (RHYTHM-ICD) study, patients randomised to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) showed an improvement in symptoms and functional capacity compared to the control group.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207