The Role of Natriuretic Peptides in Pericardial Fluid in Predicting Cardiovascular Disorders: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial and ventricular natriuretic peptides play an important role in the neurohormonal regulation of cardiac function. Plasma levels of these peptides may aid in the diagnosis and prognosis of different cardiac disorders, such as congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and atrial fibrillation. However, the association between elevated pericardial fluid levels of natriuretic peptides and these clinical conditions has not been proven. Databases Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were searched for primary studies evaluating atrial natriuretic peptide, B-type natriuretic peptide, and N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations within the pericardial fluid in various cardiac disorders. A total of 1060 citations were screened, of which 38 studies underwent a full-text evaluation, and 10 were finally included in this review. Sample size varied across studies (n = 8-148), and there was a total of 577 patients across the 10 studies. Findings suggested that pericardial fluid levels of B-type natriuretic peptide and N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide but not atrial natriuretic peptide, may correlated with the reported cardiac conditions. Our findings suggest that pericardial fluid levels of natriuretic peptides may correlate with some cardiac disorders such as congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The addition of these peptides to the existing clinical risk stratification scores may be helpful in the early diagnosis and management of these conditions.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it