A Tale of Two Specialties: Differences between Heart Failure Patients Admitted to Internal Medicine and Cardiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The authors described and compared the clinical profiles of patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) to internal medicine (IM) and cardiology services. Data on age, gender, length of stay, and left ventricular systolic function, as well as specific co-morbidities and clinical parameters, were recorded retrospectively to allow the assessment of provider-related differences in HF populations. IM patients were significantly older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have preserved left ventricular function. IM patients also suffered a significantly greater number of co-morbidities, in particular chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, other lung diseases, thromboembolic disease, anemia, and arthritis. Finally, significantly more IM patients had a high risk of mortality at the time of hospital admission compared with cardiology patients. In summary, IM patients were older, “sicker,” and more likely to die within the next year. Complex disease and advanced age may affect outcomes, therapeutic strategies, and impact on diagnostic accuracy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".