Contemporary burden of illness of congestive heart failure in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".