MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567727943 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000000375

Management of heart failure in the elderly

2017· review· en· W2567727943 on OpenAlexaff
Faisal Alghamdi, Michael Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureIntensive care medicineModalitiesTreatment modalityDisease managementManagement of heart failurePopulation ageingDiseaseHeart diseasePopulationHealth careCardiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heart failure is a major chronic illness with no definitive cure. With improving healthcare and with an aging population in many countries, heart failure has become a common disease of the elderly. Pharmacological management of heart failure in the elderly remains a challenge. The syndrome of heart failure cannot be isolated from other comorbidities, which are very common in this population. The purpose of this review is to assist practicing clinicians to more effectively make decisions about management of heart failure in the elderly. RECENT FINDINGS: In this review, we will try to integrate recent research studies, recent guidelines, and new treatment modalities, and discuss some controversies. SUMMARY: In general, the elderly patient with heart failure should be treated according to current heart failure guidelines; however, untailored heart failure management may cause untoward effects in this age group and may worsen clinical outcome.

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)0.003
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207