MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152153782 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2021.01.017

CCS/CHFS Heart Failure Guidelines Update: Defining a New Pharmacologic Standard of Care for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

2021· review· en· W3152153782 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael McDonald, Sean Virani, Michael Chan, Anique Ducharme, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Nadia Giannetti, George Heckman, Jonathan G. Howlett, Sheri L. Koshman, Serge Lepage, Lisa Mielniczuk, Gordon W. Moe, Eileen O’Meara, Elizabeth Swiggum, Mustafa Toma, Shelley Zieroth, Kim Anderson, Sharon Bray, Brian Clarke, Alain Cohen‐Solal, Michel D’Astous, Margot K. Davis, Sabe De, Andrew Grant, Adam Grzeslo, Jodi Heshka, Sabina Keen, Simon Kouz, Douglas S. Lee, Frederick A. Masoudi, Robert S. McKelvie, Marie-Claude Parent, Stephanie Poon, Miroslaw Rajda, Abhinav Sharma, Kyla Siatecki, Kate Storm, Bruce Sussex, Harriette G.C. Van Spall, Amelia Yip

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt Joseph's Health CareCegep regional de LanaudiereMcMaster UniversityMcGill UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreDr. Georges-L.-Dumont University Hospital CentreQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreRoyal Alexandra HospitalHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of OttawaDalhousie UniversityMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of ManitobaSt. Michael's HospitalWestern UniversityMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of TorontoUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of WaterlooRoyal Jubilee HospitalHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity Health NetworkLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureEjection fractionNeprilysinContext (archaeology)SacubitrilValsartanAngiotensin receptorCardiologyInternal medicineDigoxinIntensive care medicinePharmacologyAngiotensin IIReceptorBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations289
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207