MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315954539 · doi:10.1139/y11-040

Atrial natriuretic peptides in heart failure: pathophysiological significance, diagnostic and prognostic value

2011· review· en· W2315954539 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nina Ghosh, Haissam Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatriuresisHeart failureInternal medicineAtrial natriuretic peptideMedicineBrain natriuretic peptideNatriuretic peptideDiuresisCardiologyRenin–angiotensin systemVasodilationAldosteroneEndocrinologyBlood pressureKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurohormonal activation in patients with heart failure is dominated by the deleterious long-term effects of activation of the sympathetic nervous system and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. The natriuretic peptides, including brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), are also upregulated in heart failure, and partially counteract these deleterious effects by promoting vasodilation, natriuresis, and diuresis. Although BNP has been established as an important biomarker in the diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure, growing evidence suggests that measurement of plasma ANP, specifically its metabolite mid-regional pro-ANP, has similar diagnostic and prognostic value. Furthermore, its measurement may provide incremental diagnostic value when BNP levels fall into "grey zone" levels and may be a more potent prognostic marker of mortality.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207