ANMCO position paper: diagnosis and treatment of heart failure with preserved systolic function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure is the leading cardiovascular cause of hospitalization with an increasing prevalence, especially in older patients. About 50% of patients with heart failure have preserved ventricular function, a form of heart failure that, until a few years ago, was orphaned by pharmacological treatments effective in reducing hospitalization and mortality. New trials, which have tested the use of gliflozins in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), have for the first time demonstrated their effectiveness in changing the natural history of this insidious and frequent form of heart failure. Therefore, diagnosing those patients early is crucial to provide the best treatment. Moreover, the diagnosis is influenced by the patient's comorbidities, and some HFpEF patients have symptoms common to other rare diseases that, if unrecognized, develop an unfavourable prognosis. This position paper aims to provide the clinician with a useful tool for diagnosing and treating patients with HFpEF, guiding the clinician towards the most appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic pathway.
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) | 0.000 | 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".