November 2019 at a Glance. Chronic and Acute Heart Failure: From Epidemiology to Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frailty and heart failureFrailty is common in heart failure (HF) patients.It is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and reduced response to medical therapy. 1 Vitale et al. 2 proposed a new definition of frailty and provided tools to identify and quantify it in HF patients. Chronic heart failure: epidemiology and treatment Mortality trendsMortality in chronic HF is still comparable to cancer.3 A meta-analysis of 60 studies with survival data for 1.5 million people with HF showed survival rates at 5 and 10 years of 56.7% and 34.9%, respectively.However, survival improved in these years and was greater in young patients and in secondary care centres.4 Incidence of cardiogenic shock increased between 2012 and 2017 in the Danish population.An increase in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and LV dysfunction and a decrease in ST-elevation
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.345 | 0.198 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".