Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Resting heart rate has long been thought to be a risk factor in cardiovascular disease and a prognostic factor in heart failure. β-Blockers were originally used in heart failure for their heart rate control abilities. However, they also have negative inotropic effects contributing to their overall benefit. The role of isolated heart rate modification is unclear in left ventricular systolic dysfunction. RECENT FINDINGS: Two recent studies looked at the heart rate-lowering effects of the If, or funny current inhibitor ivabradine and its potential role in heart failure therapy. At the doses chosen for the studies, ivabradine is presumed to have only effects on heart rate with no other cardiotropic effects. Thus, the cardiovascular outcome benefits are presumed to be secondary to heart rate modification. SUMMARY: The two recent trials showed both heart rate and cardiovascular events to be significantly lower in the ivabradine-treated group of patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and initial heart rate at least 70 beats/min. However, neither of these trials proved causality. Hence, the link between heart rate and improved cardiovascular outcomes still remains muddled.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".