Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Compared with the left ventricle, studies of right ventricular failure as a distinct clinical entity have lagged behind. Evolving appreciation of the prognostic significance of right ventricular dysfunction in the heart failure population and advances in noninvasive imaging have provided the impetus for recent investigation into the assessment and management of right ventricular failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Pulmonary hypertension and attendant right ventricular dysfunction are prevalent in patients with systolic and diastolic heart failure and are associated with poor survival. Simple echocardiographic and MRI indices of right ventricular function relate to prognosis and may also be useful in following response to therapy. Management of acute and chronic right ventricular failure is largely empiric and is focused on treating the underlying cause along with judicious use of diuretics and inotropes. The use of left ventricular assist devices to help treat pulmonary hypertension in heart failure is an emerging strategy in transplant-eligible patients. SUMMARY: Right ventricular failure is clinically significant and merits further dedicated study. Parameters of right ventricular dysfunction can be assessed noninvasively. An approach to the management of acute and chronic right ventricular failure should take into consideration novel pharmacologic and device-based therapies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".