Prevention of Cancer Therapy-Related Cardiac Dysfunction and Heart Failure in Cancer Patients and Survivors. A Clinical Consensus Statement of the Heart Failure Association, the European Association of Preventive Cardiology of the ESC, and the ESC Council of Cardio-Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite advances in cancer treatments with significant improvement in patient outcomes, chemotherapy, targeted molecular therapies and radiotherapy may cause a range of cardiovascular complications, such as cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD), which represents a broad spectrum of possible presentation and aetiological link with the broad scope of various cancer therapies, including chemotherapy, targeted agents, immunotherapies, and radiation therapy, aiming at reducing the associated morbidity and mortality. However, practical guidelines on the primary prevention of CTRCD in high-risk patients, a key element in improving prognosis, are lacking in cancer patients and related evidence remains inconclusive. This Clinical Consensus Statement, authored by experts from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the ESC Council of Cardio-Oncology, aims to discuss the definition and epidemiology of CTRCD, the implicated factors for risk stratification, and the appropriate early diagnostic pathways, while focusing on lifestyle modifications, and pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of CTRCD. In addition, a holistic cardio-oncology management approach is advised for prevention and long-term management.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".