Clinical Features, Treatment Practices, and Hospital and Long‐Term Outcomes of Older Patients Hospitalized with Decompensated Heart Failure: The Worcester Heart Failure Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine age-specific differences in clinical presentation, receipt of therapeutic practices and lifestyle recommendations, and hospital and long-term survival in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure HF. DESIGN: Population-based study. SETTING: The Worcester Heart Failure Study, a population-based study of residents of the a large Central New England metropolitan area hospitalized for decompensated HF at 11 greater-Worcester medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Four thousand five hundred thirty-four patients hospitalized for decompensated HF during 1995 and 2000. MEASUREMENTS: Medical records were reviewed for demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics and hospital survival status. Long-term follow-up of discharged hospital patients was conducted through 2005. Patients were compared according to four age groups (<65, 65-74, 75-84, and > or =85). RESULTS: Mean age was 76; 24.0% were aged 85 and older. Patients aged 75 and older were more likely to be female and to have multiple comorbidities, a lower body mass index at the time of hospitalization, and higher ejection fraction findings. Older patients were significantly more likely to receive symptom-modifying medications and less likely to receive disease-modifying medications than younger patients. Older age was directly associated with higher in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year death rates in crude and multivariable-adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: The results of this community-wide study suggest that clinical, treatment, and prognostic factors differ according to age in patients hospitalized for decompensated HF. These high-risk patients warrant special attention in future studies to improve their management and long-term survival.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".