MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944687799 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.1494

Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Practical Guidance on the Use of Natriuretic Peptide Concentrations

2019· review· en· W2944687799 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyIntracardiac injectionNatriuretic peptideAtrial fibrillationMyocardial infarctionPulmonary embolism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natriuretic peptide [NP; B-type NP (BNP), N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP), and midregional proANP (MR-proANP)] concentrations are quantitative plasma biomarkers for the presence and severity of haemodynamic cardiac stress and heart failure (HF). End-diastolic wall stress, intracardiac filling pressures, and intracardiac volumes seem to be the dominant triggers. This paper details the most important indications for NPs and highlights 11 key principles underlying their clinical use shown below. NPs should always be used in conjunction with all other clinical information. NPs are reasonable surrogates for intracardiac volumes and filling pressures. NPs should be measured in all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of HF such as dyspnoea and/or fatigue, as their use facilitates the early diagnosis and risk stratification of HF. NPs have very high diagnostic accuracy in discriminating HF from other causes of dyspnoea: the higher the NP, the higher the likelihood that dyspnoea is caused by HF. Optimal NP cut-off concentrations for the diagnosis of acute HF (very high filling pressures) in patients presenting to the emergency department with acute dyspnoea are higher compared with those used in the diagnosis of chronic HF in patients with dyspnoea on exertion (mild increase in filling pressures at rest). Obese patients have lower NP concentrations, mandating the use of lower cut-off concentrations (about 50% lower). In stable HF patients, but also in patients with other cardiac disorders such as myocardial infarction, valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation or pulmonary embolism, NP concentrations have high prognostic accuracy for death and HF hospitalization. Screening with NPs for the early detection of relevant cardiac disease including left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with cardiovascular risk factors may help to identify patients at increased risk, therefore allowing targeted preventive measures to prevent HF. BNP, NT-proBNP and MR-proANP have comparable diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. In patients with shock, NPs cannot be used to identify cause (e.g. cardiogenic vs. septic shock), but remain prognostic. NPs cannot identify the underlying cause of HF and, therefore, if elevated, must always be used in conjunction with cardiac imaging.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.236 · 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