Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of patients with congestive heart failure has markedly improved over the past 25 years. The most successful therapy has been attenuation of neurohumoral overactivation with antagonists of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, as well as beta-adrenergic blockade. Cardiac surgical interventions, which include not only aortocoronary artery bypass surgery but also interventions that remodel the heart and repair the mitral valve, have also been advocated. However, randomized clinical trials to prove their benefit and to identify which patients could derive the most benefit from these interventions are lacking. Cardiac devices, such as biventricular pacemakers (for cardiac resynchronization) and implantable cardiac defibrillators, have proved useful in improving survival and quality of life. The treatment of sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure has shown some promise, as has immune modulation therapy, but more research to conclusively prove their efficacy is necessary. Cell therapy with skeletal myoblasts or pluripotential stem cells is an interesting and emerging area of research that shows enormous promise. However, fundamental questions regarding the optimal use of this therapy remain unanswered. Finally, although exciting, these developments, along with the changing demographics of the Canadian population, will require a change in the way we provide care for patients with congestive heart failure. These changes will require greater involvement of health care professionals other than physicians, and greater emphasis on outpatient care, early detection and prevention, and evidence-based 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".