Comparison of Different Methods of Functional Evaluation in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it