MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059239029 · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.04.051

What Is the Strength of Evidence for Heart Failure Disease-Management Programs?

2009· article· en· W2059239029 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander M. Clark, L. Savard, David R. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Cardiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionSystematic reviewConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsIntervention (counseling)Disease managementClinical trialMeta-analysisCritical appraisalMEDLINEDiseaseEvidence-based medicineEvidence-based practiceRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicineIntensive care medicineManagement scienceNursingPathologyHealth management system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.259
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.598
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2590.598
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.018
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0160.015
Open science0.0140.008
Research integrity0.0170.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations82
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of CardiologySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207