The Autonomic Nervous System as a Therapeutic Target in Heart Failure: A Scientific Position Statement from the Translational Research Committee of the Heart Failure Association of The European Society of Cardiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite improvements in medical therapy and device-based treatment, heart failure (HF) continues to impose enormous burdens on patients and health care systems worldwide. Alterations in autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity contribute to cardiac disease progression, and the recent development of invasive techniques and electrical stimulation devices has opened new avenues for specific targeting of the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches of the ANS. The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology recently organized an expert workshop which brought together clinicians, trialists and basic scientists to discuss the ANS as a therapeutic target in HF. The questions addressed were: (i) What are the abnormalities of ANS in HF patients? (ii) What methods are available to measure autonomic dysfunction? (iii) What therapeutic interventions are available to target the ANS in patients with HF, and what are their specific strengths and weaknesses? (iv) What have we learned from previous ANS trials? (v) How should we proceed in the future?
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".