MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248519819 · doi:10.1002/hep.31035

Reply:

2019· letter· en· W4248519819 on OpenAlexaff
Manhal Izzy, Lisa B. VanWagner, Grace Lin, Mario Altieri, James Y. Findlay, Jae K. Oh, Kymberly D. Watt, Samuel S. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionCardiologyStress testing (software)Heart failureInternal medicineDiastoleCardiomyopathyBlood pressureComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potential conflict of interest: Nothing to report. We appreciate the letter by Koshy et al. We agree with the authors that blunted contractile response to stress is a pathophysiologically relevant criterion in the assessment for cirrhotic cardiomyopathy (CCM). We also agree that, unfortunately, the lack of a universal, precise definition of this criterion limits its utility in daily clinical practice, at this time. Because of this, we elected to include blunted contractile response to stress as a measure that requires further validation in the contemporary CCM criteria (see original article, Table 1).1 While finding a clinically applicable, well‐validated definition of blunted contractile response to stress is important, frequently prescribed beta blockers in these patients may continue to be a limitation to applying this criterion unless beta blockers are held, at the provider’s discretion, for 24‐72 hours before stress testing, depending on the agent used. The goal of redefining CCM is to improve understanding of the prognosis and potential interventions for this phenomenon, aiming to prevent progressive cardiac dysfunction, specifically heart failure (HF). HF is categorized mainly into two entities: HF with preserved ejection fraction (i.e., diastolic dysfunction) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (i.e., systolic dysfunction). This categorization has its own therapeutic and prognostic implications. The diagnostic tools recommended by the most recent cardiology guidelines2 to determine the type of heart failure were adapted by the CCM Consortium to develop the contemporary criteria for CCM. These tools have been well validated for assessment of cardiac muscle dysfunction universally in the general population and are feasible to use in daily clinical practice, and the measurement cutoffs for abnormal values have been well defined. To further research in this area, an improved definition of CCM is (hopefully) only the starting point. We would like to emphasize that the contemporary CCM criteria represent one of the means to detect subclinical left ventricular dysfunction and decreased contractile reserve, but they might not be the only tool. There are other surrogates, including functional assessments such as that of contractile response to stress, which will need additional study and validation. We hope that future research will help elucidate validated, clinically applicable characterization of other criteria to implement as diagnostic and prognostic measures for CCM to improve outcomes in these patients.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0180.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.031

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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatologySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207