Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For decades standard teaching recommended salt intake (sodium) reduction in patients suffering from heart failure. Neurohumoral activation with subsequent fluid retention provided a solid rationale for this long-standing recommendation. Until recently no large randomized clinical trial of sodium restriction was available, while some observational studies and metanalyses even suggested a worse outcome with strict sodium restriction in patients with heart failure. METHODS: In this narrative review we aimed to extricate from the literature whether strict sodium restriction is beneficial in patients with heart failure. We searched PubMed indexed articles between 2000 and 2023 for these terms: heart failure, salt, sodium, fluid intake. RESULTS: Most randomized trials were small and showed a wide heterogeneity of interventions. A single large, randomized clinical trial was stopped early due to futility. Overall, there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction reduces the incidence of mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure. Quality of life and functional class may improve slightly with sodium restriction. CONCLUSION: Morbidity and mortality are not reduced with sodium restriction in patients with heart failure, although some symptomatic improvement may be expected.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".