MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090167479 · doi:10.1586/14779072.7.2.147

Optimal medical treatment of cardiovascular risk factors: can we prevent the development of heart failure?

2009· review· en· W2090167479 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Carolina Alba, Diego Delgado

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineCardiologyFramingham Risk ScoreDiabetes mellitusHeart diseaseIncidence (geometry)DiseaseIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronary heart disease is the most common cause of heart failure. Its prevalence has increased mainly owing to the improved survival of patients after acute myocardial infarction. In patients with heart failure, the presence of coronary heart disease has been shown to be independently associated with worsened long-term outcomes, including hospitalizations and poor mortality. Coronary heart disease frequently coexists with several major risk factors for the onset and progression of heart failure, such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity and metabolic syndrome, among others. Medical efforts to reduce the incidence of heart failure burden in patients with coronary heart disease and other types of cardiomyopathies must be directed at the prevention of heart failure and coronary risk factors themselves, and not just at the improvement of the management of established disease. This article will address the impact of known risk factors in the development of coronary heart disease and heart failure.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.043
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.291 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207