Cardiac Rhythm Devices in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction – Role, Timing, and Optimal Use in Contemporary Practice. <i>European Journal of Heart Failure</i> Expert Consensus Document
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) emphasize personalized care, patient engagement, and shared decision-making. Medications and cardiac rhythm management (CRM) devices are recommended with a high level of evidence. However, there are significant disparities: patients who could benefit from devices are frequently referred too late or not at all. Misconceptions about device therapy and the notion that the needs of patients (especially the prevention of sudden cardiac death) can now be met by expanding drug therapies may play a role in these disparities. This state-of-the-art review is produced by members of the DIRECT HF initiative, a patient-centred, expert-led educational programme that aims to advance guideline-directed use of CRM devices in patients with HFrEF. This review discusses the latest evidence on the role of CRM devices in reducing HFrEF mortality and morbidity, and provides practical guidance on patient referral, device selection, implant timing and patient-centred follow-up.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".