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 OpenAlexaff
Maria Giulia Bellicini, Francesca Pia D’Altilia, Cristina Gussago, Marianna Adamo, Carlo Lombardi, Daniela Tomasoni, Riccardo M. Inciardi, Marco Metra, Matteo Pagnesi

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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

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
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207