MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394762944 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.3244

Dietary Sodium and Fluid Intake in Heart Failure. A Clinical Consensus Statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC

2024· article· en· W4394762944 on OpenAlexaff
Wilfried Müllens, Kevin Damman, Sebastiaan Dhont, Debasish Banerjee, Antoni Bayés‐Genís, Antonio Cannatà, Ovidiu Chioncel, Maja Čikeš, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Andreas J. Flammer, Pieter Martens, Alexandre Mebazaa, Robert J. Mentz, Òscar Miró, Brenda Moura, Julio Núñez, Jozine M. ter Maaten, Jeffrey M. Testani, Roland van Kimmenade, Frederik H. Verbrugge, Marco Metra, Giuseppe Rosano, Gerasimos Filippatos

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)Canadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureFluid restrictionSodiumDietary SodiumFluid intakeHomeostasisInternal medicineExpert opinionIntensive care medicineDietary saltCardiologyHyponatremiaBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sodium and fluid restriction has traditionally been advocated in patients with heart failure (HF) due to their sodium and water avid state. However, most evidence regarding the altered sodium handling, fluid homeostasis and congestion-related signs and symptoms in patients with HF originates from untreated patient cohorts and physiological investigations. Recent data challenge the beneficial role of dietary sodium and fluid restriction in HF. Consequently, the European Society of Cardiology HF guidelines have gradually downgraded these recommendations over time, now advising for the limitation of salt intake to no more than 5 g/day in patients with HF, while contemplating fluid restriction of 1.5-2 L/day only in selected patients. Therefore, the objective of this clinical consensus statement is to provide advice on fluid and sodium intake in patients with acute and chronic HF, based on contemporary evidence and expert opinion.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations67
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207