Cognitive Impairment in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Its Implications on Decision-Making Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive impairment (CI) is a multifaceted entity that entails more than just memory loss. Deficits in other domains, most importantly executive function, can have profound effects on health outcomes in afflicted patients. The prevalence of CI among the heart failure population is exceedingly high, and even higher so among patients with advanced heart failure (AHF). These patients display consistent declines in memory, attention, psychomotor abilities, and executive function. Such deficits interfere with patients' abilities to recognize worsening symptoms, adhere to complex medication regimens, and make sound decisions pertaining to medical care. Regular evaluation of cognitive status using instruments such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is a fast, reliable method that allows physicians who treat patients with AHF to anticipate these obstacles to treatment and act accordingly. Referral for more comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation should be considered for patients with unexplained declines from baseline, legal determination of competence, and for heart transplant or ventricular assist device placement candidates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".