Assessing parenteral diuretic treatment of decompensated heart failure in the community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Referrals of 46 patients with decompensated end-stage heart failure were reviewed by a community heart-failure specialist nurse as part of a pilot study to determine patient numbers suitable for parenteral diuretic treatment at home, and the appropriateness of the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and Carer's Stress Scales. Triage of patients resulted in the following care pathways: 14 (30%) received intravenous therapy, 11 (24%) received subcutaneous therapy, 9 (20%) required adjustment of medication, 8 (17%) could not be treated because of limited staffing resource, 4 (9%) met study exemption criteria. There were no adverse events following furosemide infusion. The majority of intravenous and subcutaneous treatments took 1-7 days (total 187 days). Parenteral diuretic therapy prevented admissions and reduced the severity heart failure symptoms in particular oedema. Patients and carers appreciated the service, which had a positive effect on carers stress. Of the nursing tools, the ESAS and the Carer's Stress Scales proved useful in the management of patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".