MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982380964 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.1272

October 2019 at a Glance: Epidemiology, Prevention, and Modes of Death

2019· article· en· W2982380964 on OpenAlexaff
Marianna Adamo, Carlo Lombardi, Marco Metra

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationHeart failureCardiologyDiabetes mellitusMitraClipBody mass indexCardiac resynchronization therapyEjection fractionEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart Failure Association consensus meeting report Update on heart failureImportant changes occurred since the publication of the last guidelines on heart failure (HF).Seferovic et al. 1 summarized in a consensus document the major advances that occurred in HF treatment.These include the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus, MitraClip for functional mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in HF, tafamidis in cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis, rivaroxaban in HF in sinus rhythm, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) in non-ischaemic HF and telemedicine. Epidemiology and prevention Geographic differencesTromp et al. 2 reviewed geographic differences in aetiology, co-morbidities, use of guideline-directed medical therapies, use of devices and outcomes, among HF patients from different geographic areas.They reported also the role of socioeconomic determinants, such as country income level and out-of-pocket costs, for quality of care and clinical outcomes across different countries.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.026

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207