MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056581114 · doi:10.1097/hco.0b013e328335fed7

Cardiorenal syndrome and heart failure

2010· review· en· W2056581114 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Reinglas, Haissam Haddad, Ross A. Davies, Lisa Mielniczuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorenal syndromeMedicineHeart failureIntensive care medicineNephrologyPathophysiologyAnemiaDiseaseInternal medicineCardiologyConcomitantComplicationDysfunctional family

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Concomitant anemia, heart failure, and renal disease can be seen in a large proportion of patients with heart failure. The purpose of this review is to discuss the current definitions and mechanisms involved in this pathophysiological relationship, as well as the potential management and treatment options available for these patients. RECENT FINDING: Dysfunctional heart can promote the dysfunction of the kidneys through a variety of pathophysiological mechanism, the reciprocal holds true as well. Heart failure has been considered as the most common type of cardiovascular complication seen in patients with renal failure. Central to this relationship lies anemia, which can be the result or the cause of either heart or kidney disease. SUMMARY: Cardiorenal syndrome is a complex condition, which requires the collaboration and resources from cardiology, cardiac surgery, nephrology, and critical care. Of great importance is recognizing the presence of cardiorenal syndrome and appreciating the impact it can play on treatment options and survival.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207