MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3726110

Contemporary burden of illness of congestive heart failure in Canada.

2003· article· en· W3726110 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ross T. Tsuyuki, Marcelo C. Shibata, Carolyn Nilsson, Marilou Hervas‐Malo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Congestive heart failure (CHF) is associated with high morbidity and mortality; however, there is little contemporary Canadian data to quantify the burden of this illness. OBJECTIVE: To report the impact of CHF in Canada, as measured by hospitalizations. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information on patients hospitalized with CHF as a most responsible, primary or complication diagnosis during fiscal year 2000/01. RESULTS: There were a total of 106,130 discharges for 85,679 CHF patients in the fiscal year 2000/01. Total in-hospital mortality was 15.8%. In terms of total discharges for CHF, 32.7% were readmissions. On an individual patient basis, 19.9% of patients were rehospitalized once or more during 2000. In terms of burden of illness of CHF compared with other major illnesses, CHF is associated with the second highest total number of hospital days and third highest number of patients affected. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization for CHF occurs frequently and accounts for a large number of hospital bed-days in Canada. These figures should signal a call to action for researchers, administrators and health care providers regarding the need for more efficacious therapies, better application of already-proven therapies and patient education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations75
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207