Research priorities for the secondary prevention and management of acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease: a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary prevention of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) involves continuous antimicrobial prophylaxis among affected individuals and is recognised as a cornerstone of public health programmes that address these conditions. However, several important scientific issues around the secondary prevention paradigm remain unresolved. This report details research priorities for secondary prevention that were developed as part of a workshop convened by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in November 2021. These span basic, translational, clinical and population science research disciplines and are built on four pillars. First, we need a better understanding of RHD epidemiology to guide programmes, policies, and clinical and public health practice. Second, we need better strategies to find and diagnose people affected by ARF and RHD. Third, we urgently need better tools to manage acute RF and slow the progression of RHD. Fourth, new and existing technologies for these conditions need to be better integrated into healthcare systems. We intend for this document to be a reference point for research organisations and research sponsors interested in contributing to the growing scientific community focused on RHD prevention and control.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".