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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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