Challenges for the Basis of Practice Response to Coceani: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Has Earned Its Class I Recommendation and Continues to Thrive Under Scrutiny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eva is a cheerful 76-year-old Norwegian woman with 5grandchildren who had an anterior myocardial infarc-tion 8 years ago and subsequently underwent coronary artery bypass grafting for triple-vessel disease. Over the last several years, she developed heart failure as the result of ischemic cardiomyopathy and became increasingly symptomatic. Until 1 year ago, she was reasonably active but has become short of breath on mild exertion, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III symptoms. She does not have angina. We had an unusually cold winter this year, and she was unable to walk in the snow and was once hospitalized for an episode of decompensation with dyspnea at rest. There is consistency across the European and American guidelines1–5 in providing the Class I recommendation level with level of evidence A for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for patients with heart failure, New York
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 | 0.137 | 0.429 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".