MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953560760 · doi:10.1080/14779072.2019.1637254

Defining the role of peritoneal dialysis in management of congestive heart failure

2019· review· en· W2953560760 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Kazory, Joanne M. Bargman

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicinePeritoneal dialysisHeart failureGuidelineKidney diseaseQuality of life (healthcare)Adverse effectDiseaseDialysisInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Congestion is an integral component of heart failure (HF) pathophysiology and portends an adverse impact on outcome. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a home-based therapeutic modality that has been used in the setting of refractory congestive HF to help optimize volume status. Not only does PD allow for customized sodium and water removal, but it also provides the opportunity for the patients to fully benefit from guideline-directed medical therapy for HF that could have otherwise been challenging to use.Areas covered: Authors provide an overview of the pathophysiologic basis for the use of PD in HF, followed by a review of the findings of the main clinical trials such as the salutary impact on HF re-admissions and quality of life. Since the goals of therapy in this setting differ from those for patients with end-stage renal disease, pertinent practical considerations in the use of this modality are then discussed as well as potential barriers.Expert opinion: For patients with chronic refractory HF, PD represents an alternative to medical therapy alone. Identification of patients that would benefit most from this modality and detection of major enablers and obstacles for the implementation of this therapy should be the focus of future studies.

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207