MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411133155 · doi:10.1007/s10741-025-10529-8

Subcutaneous sensors for monitoring congestion and to reduce heart failure hospitalizations—a viable middle ground between deep implantable intravascular monitoring devices and wearable technologies?

2025· review· en· W4411133155 on OpenAlexaff
Friedrich Wetterling, Bartlomiej Fryc, Ilaria Facchi, Toshimasa Okabe, E. Kevin Heist, Marat Fudim

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart Failure Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWearable computerHeart failureIntensive care medicineWearable technologyMedical emergencyCardiologyEmbedded systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congestive heart failure (CHF) remains a leading cause of hospitalization and mortality worldwide. Continuous monitoring is crucial for early detection of decompensation, potentially reducing hospital admissions and improving outcomes. Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have been established as useful therapeutic interventions that also support continuous monitoring in order to detect early signs of decompensation. However, prior to CIED implantation, effective continuous monitoring solutions are lacking. They exist at two extremes: deep implantable intravascular solutions such as pulmonary artery pressure sensors, which are effective but costly and complex, and wearables, which are inexpensive but lack evidence of their effectiveness and depend on ongoing active patient adherence. Subcutaneous sensors may represent a promising intermediate solution-offering continuous monitoring with lower invasiveness and cost, while maintaining higher adherence compared to wearables. This review explores the role of subcutaneous sensors in CHF management, comparing existing daily trend data to deep implantable sensors measuring direct filling pressure and CIEDs for multi-parametric risk scoring. We discuss their feasibility, limitations, and future integration into routine clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeart Failure ReviewsSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207