Abstract 14489: Physician Perspectives on the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) carries high morbidity and mortality. Compared to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HFpEF is more difficult to diagnose and lacks in evidence-based treatments. We assessed the perceptions of CV specialists and primary care physicians (PCP) regarding HFpEF diagnosis and management. Methods: The online survey targeted 200 specialists and 200 (PCPs), offering a token honorarium. A total of 159 cardiologists (C), 59 internists (I), and 200 PCPs completed the survey. Results: All provinces were represented. The perceived prevalence of HFpEF vs HFrEF was similar across physician types (58% HFrEF, 42% HFpEF). Roughly 25% of PCPs did not differentiate between HF types. All physician types ranked symptom and mortality reduction as treatment priorities. The majority of specialists felt that HFpEF is best co-managed by primary and specialty care. One fifth of PCPs felt that HFpEF should be managed by primary care alone. Compared to specialists, PCPs were more likely to underestimate HFpEF mortality vs. HFrEF, less aware of gender differences, and less able to identify clinical findings of HFpEF vs. HFrEF. Fewer PCPs (33%) than specialists (50%) use natriuretic peptide (NP) levels for diagnosis, with PCPs expressing more uncertainty with NP utility. All physician types listed cost and limited availability as restrictions to use of NP testing. For evidence-based treatments in HF (ACEi/ARB, beta blockers, loop diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists), >50% of PCPs incorrectly identified all agents as effective for HFpEF, with <10% stating that none improved outcomes. Cardiologists were more likely than internists to identify the lack of evidence-based treatments. Conclusions: This survey reveals substantial knowledge and treatment gaps in the diagnosis and management of HFpEF, specifically amongst PCPs. Given the prevalence of HFpEF in primary care, and its substantial morbidity and mortality, strategies are required to reduce these gaps. All physician types recognized the need for increased availability of NP testing for HFpEF diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".