MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081710182 · doi:10.1097/hco.0b013e3283229afb

The role of statins in chronic heart failure

2009· review· en· W2081710182 on OpenAlexaff
Mouhannad M. Sadek, Haissam Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRosuvastatinHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyPost-hoc analysisRandomized controlled trialStatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss unresolved issues and recent findings regarding the use of statins in heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent data from Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto miocardico--Heart Failure and Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure suggest that statins did not have any effect on outcome despite significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein and high sensitivity C-reactive protein. SUMMARY: Most of the evidence for the use of statins in heart failure originates from retrospective trials and post-hoc analyses, and is not supported by prospective randomized clinical trials. There is no evidence to support initiating statin therapy in patients with symptomatic New York Heart Association II-IV heart failure, regardless of the cause.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207