MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891623183 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.1010

September 2018 at a Glance: Co-Morbidities, Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists

2018· article· en· W2891623183 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Metra

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyOverweightObesity paradoxDiabetes mellitusHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionKidney diseaseObesityBody mass indexCoronary artery diseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Co-morbidities Non-cardiac co-morbiditiesIorio et al. 1 analysed the role of 15 non-cardiac co-morbidities in 2314 outpatients with chronic heart failure (HF).Obesity and hypertension were more prevalent in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), compared to those with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).A similar prevalence was found for other co-morbidities.An increasing number of non-cardiac co-morbidities was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations and non-cardiovascular hospitalizations.The co-morbidities contributing to this increased risk were anaemia, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral artery disease with similar results for HFrEF and HFpEF. 1 A similar role of co-morbidities, independent of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, was also found in other analyses.2 Chronic kidney disease was more strongly associated with a poorer outcome in HFrEF than in HFpEF in the Swedish HF Registry.3 with a hazard ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.06)per unit increase in E/e ′ for the combined outcome of all-cause

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.017

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207