Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two articles are related with congestion. The first shows that lung congestion is associated with increased pulmonary vascular resistance and pulmonary artery pressure, lower pulmonary artery compliance, right ventricular dilatation and dysfunction. 1 The prognostic value of lung congestion, is shown by both articles. The novelty is how congestion was assessed by either a chest-X score or lung comets assessment by echography in patients with acute heart failure (HF), respectively. eixeira et al examine the relation between age and the clinical characteristics and outcomes of a large group of patients with acute HF, enrolled in an international registry. 3 With respect of biomarkers, an increase in GDF-15 levels during hospitalization, but not its baseline levels, were associated with a poorer prognosis in patients with acute HF, and serelaxin decreased them in the RELAX-AHF trial. Butler et al. review the clinical characteristics and prognostic significance of in-hospital worsening HF, an event occurring in many patients hospitalized for acute HF and a potential target for treatment. wo articles regard cardiogenic shock. The first, based on large national registries, describes temporal trends in the epidemiology, management, and outcome of these patients. A decrease of in-hospital mortality, from 68% in 2001 to 38% in 2014, is shown. he second article shows the prognostic value of a new biomarker, angiopoietin-2. large meta-analysis evaluates the prognostic value of heart rate in patients with HF. Higher heart rates were associated with increased mortality in patients with HF and sinus rhythm but not in those with atrial fibrillation (AF), possibly explaining data about the lower efficacy of beta-blockers in these patients. rticles about treatment are focused on thrombotic events. Xiong et al. conducted a meta-analysis of the patients with HF enrolled in the randomized trials comparing new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with non-valvular AF. The meta-analysis shows a better efficacy and safety of the regimens based on a single daily dose or on high doses and a similar efficacy and safety of the regimens based on low doses of the new anticoagulants, compared with warfarin, also in the patients with HF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.542 | 0.420 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".