MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3181290328 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2021.07.003

Clinical Trials of Heart Failure: Is There a Question of Sex?

2021· editorial· en· W3181290328 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Zahra Sohani, Akram Alyass, Louise Pilote

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureClinical trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The syndrome of heart failure (HF) exhibits profound sex differences in clinical presentation, predisposing factors, untreated disease progression, and prognosis.1-4 Overall, a higher prevalence of hypertension, previous myocardial infarctions, obesity, and alcohol use predispose men to HF; whereas common risk factors among women include diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, smoking, as well as sex-specific conditions such as peripartum cardiomyopathy and that induced by breast cancer treatment.1,3,5 Additionally, women and men differ according to type of HF; women classically experience HF with preserved ejection fraction, and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) predominates among men.

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)0.264
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.483
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2640.483
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Cardiology→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→