MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390057148 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.3113

Unraveling Heart Failure Cardiogenic Shock Profiles and Pathways

2023· editorial· en· W4390057148 on OpenAlexaff
Varinder K. Randhawa, David A. Baran

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiogenic shockMedicineHeart failureBoulevardFamily medicineInternal medicineLibrary scienceMyocardial infarctionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article refers to 'Clinical presentation, shock severity and mortality in patients with de novo versus acute-on-chronic heart failure-related cardiogenic shock' by J. Sundermeyer et al., published in this issue on pages 432-444.Cardiogenic shock (CS) results from both non-ischaemic and ischaemic cardiac insults, ultimately leading to an acute deterioration in cardiac output associated with multi-system end-organ malperfusion with or without congestion.[1][2][3][4][5] In contrast to acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-CS where early revascularization and ventricular unloading may be of benefit, less is known about heart failure (HF)-CS with regard to targeted therapeutic strategies and mortality remains upwards of 30-50%.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] This is due to the diverse array of non-ischaemic aetiologies and underlying pathophysiology; the variable severity, chronicity, congestive profiles and risk modifiers of the clinical HF-CS presentation; and the paucity of randomized trials to guide evidence-based recommendations.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] In this issue of the Journal, Sundermeyer et al. 6 present key findings from an international, multicentre, observational non-ischaemic CS registry of 1030 adults with de novo (DNHF-CS; 47.2%) or acute-on-chronic (ACHF-CS; 52.8%) HF-CS from 16 tertiary care centres across five European countries over 2010-2021.Those with ACHF-CS were more often men (odds ratio [OR] 2.88, p < 0.001) and had more cardiac risk factors and comorbidities (diabetes OR 1.92, p < 0.001; atrial fibrillation OR 2.71, p < 0.001) despite being less likely to be resuscitated (OR 0.61, p = 0.006) or to need mechanical ventilation (OR 0.62, p = 0.011).6 They also had greater severity of CS Society for Coronary Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) stage C (OR 1.48, p = 0.110; SCAI stage D OR 2.75, p < 0.001; SCAI stage E OR 2.74, p < 0.001); more dialysis-dependent acute kidney injury (OR 1.42), pulmonary congestion (OR 1.51), and sepsis (OR 1.67); and 10% higher 30-day mortality rates (hazard ratio 1.38, p = 0.005) even after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, SCAI class, lactate, pH, resuscitation, mechanical ventilation).6 The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Journal of Heart Failure or of the European Society of Cardiology.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0120.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207