MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110709863 · doi:10.1016/j.ehj.2004.06.017

Natriuretic peptides in unstable coronary artery disease

2004· review· en· W2110709863 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tomas Jernberg, Stefan James, Bertil Lindahl, Nina Johnston, Mats Stridsberg, Per Venge, Lars Wallentin

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUnstable anginaBrain natriuretic peptideInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyMyocardial infarctionHeart failureRisk stratificationNatriuretic peptideCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyIntensive care medicineAngina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with unstable coronary artery disease (CAD), i.e., unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, vary widely in clinical presentation, prognosis and response to treatment. To select appropriate therapy, early risk stratification has become increasingly important. This review focuses on the emerging role of natriuretic peptides in the early assessment of patients with unstable CAD. We conclude that levels of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are strongly associated to mortality and the risk of future congestive heart failure, and carry important prognostic information independent from previously known risk factors in unstable CAD. There are some data indicating that these markers can also be helpful in the selection of appropriate therapy in these patients but further studies are needed. Before a routine use of BNP or NT-proBNP in unstable CAD can be recommended, the cost-effectiveness of adding these new markers to the currently routine markers and their impact on selection of treatment needs further evaluation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations71
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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