Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus Conference guidelines on heart failure – 2008 update: Best practices for the transition of care of heart failure patients, and the recognition, investigation and treatment of cardiomyopathies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure is a clinical syndrome that normally requires health care to be provided by both specialists and nonspecialists. This is advantageous because patients benefit from complementary skill sets and experience, but can present challenges in the development of a common, shared treatment plan. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society published a comprehensive set of recommendations on the diagnosis and management of heart failure in January 2006, and on the prevention, management during intercurrent illness or acute decompensation, and use of biomarkers in January 2007. The present update builds on those core recommendations. Based on feedback obtained through a national program of heart failure workshops during 2006 and 2007, several topics were identified as priorities because of the challenges they pose to health care professionals. New evidence-based recommendations were developed using the structured approach for the review and assessment of evidence that was adopted and previously described by the Society. Specific recommendations and practical tips were written for best practices during the transition of care of heart failure patients, and the recognition, investigation and treatment of some specific cardiomyopathies. Specific clinical questions that are addressed include: What information should a referring physician provide for a specialist consultation? What instructions should a consultant provide to the referring physician? What processes should be in place to ensure that the expectations and needs of each physician are met? When a cardiomyopathy is suspected, how can it be recognized, how should it be investigated and diagnosed, how should it be treated, when should the patient be referred, and what special tests are available to assist in the diagnosis and treatment? The goals of the present update are to translate best evidence into practice, apply clinical wisdom where evidence for specific strategies is weaker, and aid physicians and other health care providers to optimally treat heart failure patients, resulting in a measurable impact on patient health and clinical outcomes in Canada.
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".