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] Design: inception cohort followed for 1 year. ### ![Graphic][6] Setting: 103 teaching and community hospitals in Ontario, Canada. ### ![Graphic][7] 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".