MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093881287 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn503

Impact of hospitalization for acute coronary events on subsequent mortality in patients with chronic heart failure

2008· article· en· W2093881287 on OpenAlexaff
Putte Abrahamsson, Joanna Dobson, C. B. Granger, John J.V. McMurray, Eric L. Michelson, M. Pfeffer, S J Pocock, Scott D. Solomon, Salim Yusuf, Karl Swedberg

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Medical Research GroupMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicineEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: We explored the impact of having a hospital admission for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the subsequent prognosis among patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 7599 patients with CHF, New York Heart Association Classes II-IV, were randomly assigned to candesartan or placebo. We assessed the risk of death after a first ACS using time-updated Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for baseline predictors. During a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, 1174 patients experienced at least one ACS. Myocardial infarction (MI) was the first ACS in 442 subjects and unstable angina (UA) in 732. After these events, 219 (49.5%) and 167 (22.8%) patients died during follow-up. The early risk of death was more pronounced after MI: 30.2% died within 30 days compared with 3.6% after UA. After an ACS event, the risk of death declined steadily over time, although 18 months after an MI the risk was still twice that of patients without an ACS. CONCLUSION: Patients with CHF, who develop an ACS, have markedly increased subsequent mortality, particularly in the early phase after an MI.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207