Comparison of Different Methods of Functional Evaluation in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stratification of the severity of heart failure has major prognostic and therapeutic implications. AIMS: To prospectively compare different methods of assessment of functional capacity in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 143 patients (78 male and 65 female) with CHF aged less than 70 years (mean 57.3 years). Functional assessment was made clinically according to NYHA classification and according to the Goldman Activity Scale Classification (GASC). Cardiovascular performance was measured by peak O(2) consumption (pVO(2)) and anaerobic threshold (AT) at cardiopulmonary exercise test and by the distance walked during a 6-min walk test (6-MWT). Clinical scales resulted significantly related. Peak VO(2) and AT showed a mild relation with distance covered at 6-MWT (r=0.56 and r=0.46, respectively). Concordance between NYHA classification and levels of performance at cardiopulmonary exercise test or at 6-MWT was less than 50%. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that none of the usually employed methods give a definitive assessment of functional capacity of cardiovascular system and a high degree of discordance exists among the results of different tests in the same patient. Although NYHA classification maintains its value in clinical evaluation of patients with CHF, the 6-min walk test is recommended in patients with mild-to-moderate CHF (II-III NYHA classes) as a simple and useful screening test to select patients for further diagnostic evaluation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".