Awareness, Access, and Adoption of Natriuretic Peptides for Diagnosis of Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This survey investigates natriuretic peptide (NP) testing in community and hospital settings, assessing awareness, accessibility, and utilization. METHODS AND RESULTS: This investigator-initiated survey, conceived within the HFA of the European Society of Cardiology, comprised 14 questions. It underwent validation and pilot testing to ensure question readability and online system functionality. The survey was accessible for 87 days, from 5 April 2023 to 1 July 2023 via a web platform. There were 751 healthcare professionals across 99 countries who responded. Of them, 92.5% had access to NPs testing in hospital whereas 34.3% had no access to NTproBNP in community settings. Access to point of care NP testing was uncommon (9.6%). Public insurance fully covered NPs testing in 31.0% of cases, with private insurance providing coverage in 37.9%. The majority (84.0%) of participants believed that the medical evidence supporting NPs testing was strong, and 54.7% considered it cost-effective. Also, 35.8% found access, awareness, and adoption to be in favour of NPs testing both in hospital and community settings. Strategies to optimize NP testing involved regular guideline updates (57.9%), prioritizing NPs testing for dyspnoea assessment (36.4%), and introducing clinician feedback mechanisms (21.2%). Notably, 40% lacked a community-based HF diagnostic pathway for referring high-NP patients for echocardiography and cardiology evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This survey reveals NP awareness, access, and adoption across several countries. Highlighting the importance of community-based early heart failure diagnosis and optimizing HF diagnostic pathways remains a crucial, unmet opportunity to improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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".