MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407749978 · doi:10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suae095

Towards a phenotype profiling of the patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

2025· article· en· W4407749978 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni Battista Bonfioli, Matteo Pagnesi, Leonardo Calò, Marco Metra

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Supplements · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionPhenotypeHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionProfiling (computer programming)GeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasing and prognosis remains poor, with a high risk of mortality or hospitalizations for worsening heart failure events. Apart from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and diuretics, the management of HFpEF is nowadays based on the different aetiologies and cardiovascular or non-cardiovascular comorbidities. A great heterogeneity of clinical profiles has been described in HFpEF, with several recent studies focused on the identification of different HFpEF phenotypes. In this review, we summarize available evidence on phenotype profiling in HFpEF, describing the different phenotypes with the relative therapeutic implications, and reporting other specific clinical conditions relevant for HFpEF differential diagnosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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