MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069620609 · doi:10.1097/hco.0b013e32835bd480

The role of vitamin D in chronic heart failure

2013· review· en· W2069620609 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Pourdjabbar, Girish Dwivedi, Haissam Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureVitamin D and neurologyVitaminInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite advanced medical and device-based therapies, congestive heart failure (CHF) remains a major medical problem, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent in CHF and is associated with poor outcomes. In this manuscript we review the evidence linking vitamin D deficiency and CHF and discuss potential mechanisms involved, as well the clinical data on vitamin D supplementation in CHF patients. RECENT FINDINGS: A clear relationship has been established between Vitamin D deficiency and increased mortality and morbidity in CHF. However, the mechanism involved is not clearly understood. Recent clinical and experimental evidence have identified the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and inflammatory cytokines as likely mediators that can lead to poor clinical outcomes via the cardiorenal syndrome. Clinical data on vitamin D supplementation also remain unestablished, with potential clinical benefits recently reported in patients with vitamin D deficiency. Nonetheless, large-scale randomized clinical trials are lacking. SUMMARY: Vitamin D is an emerging agent with tremendous potential and may represent a novel target for therapy in CHF. Further studies are needed to identify the mechanism(s) involved in the pathophysiology as well as to adequately examine the role of Vitamin D measurement and supplementation in patients with CHF.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207