MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327742216 · doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02302-x

Author Correction: Dapagliflozin in heart failure with improved ejection fraction: a prespecified analysis of the DELIVER trial

2023· erratum· en· W4327742216 on OpenAlexaff
Orly Vardeny, James C. Fang, Akshay S. Desai, Pardeep S. Jhund, Brian Claggett, Muthiah Vaduganathan, Rudolf A. de Boer, Adrian F. Hernandez, Carolyn S.P. Lam, Silvio E. Inzucchi, Felipe A. Martínez, Mikhail Kosiborod, David L. DeMets, Eileen O’Meara, Shelley Zieroth, Josep Comín‐Colet, Jarosław Dróżdż, Chern‐En Chiang, Masafumi Kitakaze, Magnus Petersson, Daniel Lindholm, Anna Maria Langkilde, John J.V. McMurray, Scott D. Solomon

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Medicine · 2023
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversité de MontréalSt. Boniface HospitalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDapagliflozinEjection fractionHeart failureMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the version of this article initially published, there was an error in the abstract, where in the sentence now reading, in part, “In participants with HFimpEF… first worsening heart failure events (HR = 0.84),” the hazard ratio originally read “0.78,” while in the second paragraph of the “Outcomes by HFimpEF status” Results subsection, in the sentence now reading, in part, “The effect of dapagliflozin on HF outcomes was also similar in those with HFimpEF (HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.61–1.14) and those with LVEF consistently over 40% (HR = 0.78),” the hazard ratio values were mistakenly interchanged. The values have been updated in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.220
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.220
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.025

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature MedicineSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207