MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Role of Beta-Blocker in Heart Failure in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease

2014· review· en· W2332148262 on OpenAlexaff
Kambiz Norozi

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews on Recent Clinical Trials · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Western OntarioWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBeta blockerHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicineHeart diseaseBETA (programming language)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thanks to the enormous progress in the field of cardiac surgery and paediatric cardiology since the mid of 20th century, more and more children with congenital heart defects reach the adulthood. This on the other hand encounter physician and patients various problems due to late complications after the heart surgery like congestive heart failure, arrhythmia and sudden death. One of the challenging area is the medical management of heart failure in these patients with complex anatomy and hemodynamics. The lack of evidence of the effectiveness of the anti congestive medications in this population in from of large randomized controlled trials, makes it difficult to establish universally accepted therapy guidelines. In this article we will review the evidence of the beta-blockers in heart failure in patients with congenital heart disease. Also we will discuss the mechanisms of heart failure in this patient's cohort and will review the literature with respect to the use of neurohormonal antagonists in congenital heart disease. There is an urgent need to initiate well-designed clinical trials to prove if the positive results of neurohormonal blockade in acquired heart failure in adults can be translated in patients with congenital heart disease.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews on Recent Clinical TrialsSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207