Heart Failure: An Underappreciated Complication of Diabetes. A Consensus Report of the American Diabetes Association
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it