Key Strategies for Clinical Management and Improvement of Healthcare Services for Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Patients in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Settings: Recommendations From the REPROGRAM Consortium
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with cardiovascular disease and diabetes are at potentially higher risk of infection and fatality due to COVID-19. Given the social and economic costs associated with disability due to these conditions, it is imperative that specific considerations for clinical management of these patients be observed. Moreover, the reorganization of health services around the pandemic response further exacerbates the growing crisis around limited access, treatment compliance, acute medical needs and mental health of patients in this specific subgroup. Existing recommendations and guidelines emanating from respective bodies have addressed some of the pressure points; however, there are variations and limitations vis a vis patient with multiple comorbidities such as obesity. This article will pull together a comprehensive assessment of the association of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity and COVID-19, its impact on the health systems and how best health systems can respond to mitigate current challenges and future needs. We anticipate that in the context of this pandemic, the cardiovascular disease and diabetes patients need a targeted strategy to ensure the harm to this group does not translate to huge costs to society and to the economy. Finally, we propose a triage and management protocol for patients with cardiovascular disease and diabetes in the COVID-19 settings to minimize harm to patients, health systems and healthcare workers alike.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it