MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are Multiple Biomarker Testing Strategies Ready for Prime Time in Heart Failure?

2009· letter· en· W2132428720 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas S. Lee, Jack V. Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerPrime (order theory)Heart failurePrime timeMedicineComputer scienceInternal medicineBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I n patients with heart failure, the promise that biomarkers may provide has been extensively explored. Although brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) had been proposed as a potential tool for screening patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, subsequent studies suggested that the biomarker had little benefit in this context. 1 Indeed, the utility of BNP is perhaps most valuable when used in the more restricted and specific diagnostic context of the dyspneic patient without a clear-cut diagnosis. 4] Prior studies evaluating the prognostic utility of biomarkers in heart failure were often limited in this context.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207