1 year mortality after first hospital admission for heart failure was similar in patients with preserved or reduced ejection fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bhatia RS, Tu JV, Lee DS, et al . Outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a population-based study. N Engl J Med 2006;355:260–9. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q After a first hospital admission for heart failure (HF), how do the 1 year outcomes of patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF) compare with those of patients with reduced EF? Clinical impact ratings IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★★ Internal medicine ★★★★★★★ Cardiology ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: inception cohort followed for 1 year. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Setting: 103 teaching and community hospitals in Ontario, Canada. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Patients: 880 patients (mean age 75 y, 66% women) with preserved EF (>50%) and 1570 patients (mean age 72 y, 63% men) with reduced EF (<40%). Patients were included if they had a first time hospital admission for HF (defined by Framingham study criteria) between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2001 and documented evaluation of left ventricular EF at admission. Exclusion criteria were age ⩾105 years, transfer from another hospital, HF that developed after admission, or severe primary left sided … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.aulast%253DBhatia%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BS.%26rft.volume%253D355%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D260%26rft.epage%253D269%26rft.atitle%253DOutcome%2Bof%2Bheart%2Bfailure%2Bwith%2Bpreserved%2Bejection%2Bfraction%2Bin%2Ba%2Bpopulation-based%2Bstudy.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa051530%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16855266%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa051530&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16855266&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F6%2F185.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000239097600007&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".