Heart Failure: An Underappreciated Complication of Diabetes. A Consensus Report of the American Diabetes Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) has been recognized as a common complication of diabetes, with a prevalence of up to 22% in individuals with diabetes and increasing incidence rates. Data also suggest that HF may develop in individuals with diabetes even in the absence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, or valvular heart disease and, as such, represents a major cardiovascular complication in this vulnerable population; HF may also be the first presentation of cardiovascular disease in many individuals with diabetes. Given that during the past decade, the prevalence of diabetes (particularly type 2 diabetes) has risen by 30% globally (with prevalence expected to increase further), the burden of HF on the health care system will continue to rise. The scope of this American Diabetes Association consensus report with designated representation from the American College of Cardiology is to provide clear guidance to practitioners on the best approaches for screening and diagnosing HF in individuals with diabetes or prediabetes, with the goal to ensure access to optimal, evidence-based management for all and to mitigate the risks of serious complications, leveraging prior policy statements by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".