MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416170004 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccas.2025.105160

A Quality Improvement Initiative on Documentation of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Implementation Among Primary Prevention CRT-D Implant

2025· article· en· W4416170004 on OpenAlexaff
Sadia Wasik, Yasbanoo Moayedi, Andrew C.T. Ha, Krishnakumar Nair, Ana Carolina Alba, Katherine V Westcott, Stephen Chan, Barry Rubin, Heather J. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical therapyHeart failureDocumentationGuidelineCardiac resynchronization therapyQuality managementEjection fractionMedical device

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction has advanced significantly in recent years. The 2022 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure recommends 4 pillars of medication in its guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT): sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors. The implementation of GDMT at maximally tolerated doses has been proven effective in multiple trials. Rates of quadruple GDMT adoption among patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) remain suboptimal in the published literature. We explored challenges to documentation on GDMT use among patients with CRT-D and identified different approaches to overcome them. This article highlights our observations and findings.

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.169
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.169
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC Case ReportsSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207