Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Heart Failure does not Exist: A Non-Judgmental Framework for Describing the Level of Adherence to Evidence-Based Drug Treatments for Patients with a Reduced Ejection Fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous guideline documents have issued recommendations to clinicians concerning the treatment of chronic heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. However, guidelines do not describe what constitutes an acceptable standard of care, and thus, practitioners who adhere to only a small fraction of the recommendations might claim that they are treating patients 'in accordance with the guidelines'. As a result, <1% of patients with heart failure are receiving all life-prolonging treatments at trial-proven doses. A major impediment to the widespread adoption of trial-based treatments is a lack of any existing framework that would allow physicians to describe the adequacy of care. To address this deficiency, we propose a novel simple approach that would ask practitioners if a patient had been treated using the dosing algorithm that had been shown to be effective for each drug class. The proposed framework recognizes that all landmark survival trials in heart failure were 'strategy trials', i.e. the studies mandated a standardized forced-titration treatment plan that required timely uptitration to specified target dose unless patients experienced clinically meaningful, intolerable or serious adverse events, which persisted or recurred despite adjustment of other medications. Adherence to trial-proven regimens might be improved if physicians were asked to describe the degree to which a patient's treatment adhered to or deviated from the strategies that had been used to demonstrate the survival benefits of neurohormonal antagonists. The proposed framework should also promote practitioner self-awareness about the lack of evidence supporting the current widespread use of subtarget doses that are non-adherent with trial-proven forced-titration strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".