MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008044497 · doi:10.1111/1440-1681.13290

The therapeutic effect of B‐type natriuretic peptides in acute decompensated heart failure

2020· review· en· W3008044497 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Čaprnda, Anthony Zulli, Haaris A. Shiwani, Peter Kubatka, Slavomíra Filipová, Vanda Valentová, Katarína Gazdíková, Ioana Mozoş, Andrius Berūkštis, Aleksandras Laucevičius, Ivan Řiháček, Jozef Dragašek, Robert Prosecký, Emmanuel E. Egom, Robert Staffa, Peter Kružliak, Vladimír Krásnik

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
FundersGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsNatriuresisMedicineDiuresisNatriuretic peptideHeart failureAcute decompensated heart failureIntensive care medicineClinical trialInternal medicineCardiologyCardiorenal syndromeRenal function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) exhibits roles in natriuresis and diuresis, making it an ideal drug that may aid in diuresing a fluid-overloaded patient with poor or worsening renal function. Several randomized clinical trials have tested the hypothesis that infusions of pharmacological doses of BNP to acute heart failure (HF) patients may enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in this clinical setting. Unfortunately, none of these have demonstrated beneficial outcomes. The current challenge for BNP research in acute HF lies in addressing a failure of concept and a reluctance to abandon an ineffective research model. Future success will necessitate a detailed understanding of the mechanism of action of BNP, as well as better integration of basic and clinical science.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.404 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental Pharmacology and PhysiologySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207