Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The main aim of this review is to address and challenge an old nomenclature of reversible versus irreversible chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy. RECENT FINDINGS: Chemotherapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CRCD) has been often characterized as type I or type II. Type I CRCD (e.g., anthracycline) represents a group of chemotherapeutic agents that has often been correlated with irreversible cardiac dysfunction. Conversely, type II CRCD (e.g., trastuzumab) represents a group of anticancer agents that has been considered as reversible. Recent evidence suggests that this nomenclature may not hold true, thus affecting clinical prognosis as well as timely management. It is prudent to address this concern so that physicians are armed with appropriate information, thus providing our oncological patients with informed care. The purpose is to highlight the grey area in this dichotomous classification. SUMMARY: Type I CRCD can be reversible if cardioprotective medications are administered in a timely manner. Conversely, a small proportion of type II CRCD may develop irreversible dysfunction and therefore, will require a long-term follow-up. Therefore, every case should be dealt on an individual basis and an appropriate prognosis should be given to patients based on the clinical evidence on hand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".