EuroHeartCare 2021: the importance of advanced practice and a multidisciplinary approach in cardiovascular care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely impacted our personal and professional lives and has had a huge impact on research. The annual face-to-face EuroHeartCare (EHC) was postponed in 2021 and took place virtually. One of the key themes from the various sessions was the importance of advanced practice and providing specialist care to patients across a diverse range of specialties including atrial fibrillation (AF), postural tachycardia syndrome (PoTS), pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH), and care of cardiovascular conditions in the presence of cancer. Two particular sessions: ‘Optimisation of outcomes in cardiovascular populations’ covering three conditions—PoTS, PAH, and care of cardiovascular conditions in the presence of cancer and a session on ‘Multidisciplinary approaches to detecting and perfecting care in atrial fibrillation’ highlighted the critical role of the advanced practitioner and the importance of ensuring a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach in managing chronic cardiovascular disease conditions. PoTS is a very debilitating condition...
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".