MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187847587

Differentiating diastolic dysfunction from classic heart failure

2012· article· en· W2187847587 on OpenAlexaff
Jagdip S. Jaswal, John R. Ussher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureCardiologyMedicineDiastoleInternal medicineEjection fractionVentricleDiastolic heart failureHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionDiabetes mellitusBlood pressureEndocrinology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart failure (HF) is characterized by an impaired ability of the ventricle to fill with and eject blood commensurate with the metabolic demands and requirements of the body, and has emerged as a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the developed world. Approximately 50% of HF patients have preserved ejection fraction, and lack overt signs of systolic failure, but rather have deficits in ventricular relaxation indicative of diastolic dysfunction/HF. Systolic HF and diastolic dysfunction/HF share a number of risk factors including age, myocardial ischemia, hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. As such these risk factors may be of limited utility in discriminating between the two HF phenotypes. However, differences in ventricular remodeling and ventricular function can readily differentiate systolic HF from diastolic dysfunction/HF. To date, a common modality to improve the status of both HF entities remains to be found. As therapeutic interventions that optimize cardiac energy metabolism have proven useful in the management of systolic HF, and because ventricular relaxation is an energy-dependent process, a better understanding of the alterations in energy metabolism in diastolic dysfunction/HF may identify novel treatment strategies for this cardiac pathology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207