Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Obesity, a growing global health problem, contributes to the development of heart failure. However, increased BMI seems protective for those with established disease, a phenomenon known as the 'obesity paradox'. In this review, we outline the mechanism through which obesity can contribute to the development of heart failure, explore the concept of obesity paradox, and highlight the challenges that obesity presents for advanced heart failure therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Although the mechanism underlying the obesity paradox is complex, meta-analysis shows that intentional weight loss through bariatric surgery can indeed improve cardiac structure and function. With regard to ventricular assist device therapy in obese patients, recent studies demonstrate that while obesity was indeed associated with higher likelihood of complications, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of mortality or delisting from cardiac transplant waiting list. SUMMARY: Obesity is strongly associated with the development of heart failure, through direct and indirect mechanisms. Although clear consensus regarding weight reduction in this patient population is lacking, there is mounting clinical evidence that intentional weight loss may be beneficial, in spite of the well-recognized obesity paradox, particularly as the presence of obesity presents unique challenges in the advanced therapy of heart failure patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".