Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of "diastolic" heart failure grew out of the observation that many patients who have the symptoms and signs of heart failure had an apparently normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction. Thus it was assumed that since systolic function was "preserved" the problem must lie in diastole, although it is not clear by whom or when this assumption was made. Nevertheless, many guidelines followed on how to diagnose "diastolic" heart failure backed up by indicators of diastolic dysfunction derived from Doppler echoardiography. Diastolic heart failure is associated with a lower annual mortality rate of approximately 8% as compared to annual mortality of 19% in heart failure with systolic dysfunction, however, morbidity rate can be substantial. Thus, diastolic heart failure is an important clinical disorder mainly seen in the elderly patients with hypertensive heart disease. Early recognition and appropriate therapy of diastolic dysfunction is advisable to prevent further progression to diastolic heart failure and death. There is no specific therapy to improve LV diastolic function directly. Medical therapy of diastolic dysfunction is often empirical and lacks clear-cut pathophysiologic concepts. Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors and ARB as well as nitric oxide donors can be beneficial. Treatment of the underlying disease is currently the most important therapeutic approach.
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 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 | 0.031 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".