Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The advent of smart technologies has significantly impacted the management of CVD, offering innovative tools and solutions to improve patient outcomes. Smart technologies have revolutionized and transformed the management of CVD, providing innovative tools to improve patient care, enhance diagnostics, and enable more personalized treatment approaches. These smart tools encompass a wide range of technologies, including wearable devices, mobile applications,3D printing technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), remote monitoring systems, and electronic health records (EHR). They offer numerous advantages, such as real-time monitoring, early detection of abnormalities, remote patient management, and data-driven decision-making. However, they also come with certain limitations and challenges, including data privacy concerns, technical issues, and the need for regulatory frameworks. In this review, despite these challenges, the future of smart technologies in CVD management looks promising, with advancements in AI algorithms, telemedicine platforms, and bio fabrication techniques opening new possibilities for personalized and efficient care. In this article, we also explore the role of smart technologies in CVD management, their advantages and disadvantages, limitations, current applications, and their smart future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".