MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383302486 · doi:10.2459/jcm.0000000000001514

Telemedicine for the treatment of heart failure: new opportunities after COVID-19

2023· review· en· W4383302486 on OpenAlex
Maria Giulia Bellicini, Francesca Pia D’Altilia, Cristina Gussago, Marianna Adamo, Carlo Lombardi, Daniela Tomasoni, Riccardo M. Inciardi, Marco Metra, Matteo Pagnesi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineTelemedicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Coronavirus InfectionsHeart failureBetacoronavirusIntensive care medicineMEDLINEPandemicMedical emergencyVirologyCardiologyInternal medicineHealth careDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the epidemiology of heart failure significantly changed with reduced access to health system resources and a worsening of patients' outcome. Understanding the causes of these phenomena could be important to refine the management of heart failure during and after the pandemic. Telemedicine was associated with an improvement in heart failure outcomes in several studies; therefore, it may help in refining the out-of-hospital care of heart failure. In this review, the authors describe the changes in heart failure epidemiology during the COVID-19 pandemic; analyse available evidence on use and benefit of telemedicine during the pandemic and prepandemic periods; and discuss approaches to optimize the home-based or outpatient heart failure management in the future, beyond the pandemic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.227
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.214 · 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