The Symptom of Pain in Individuals Recently Hospitalized for Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The symptom of pain is not typically associated with heart failure. Yet, emerging evidence suggests that pain is an important issue for this population. OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine whether pain was reported by a cohort of individuals with heart failure at the time of discharge from hospital, at 2 and 6 weeks postdischarge; (2) To examine the profile of individuals who reported pain at discharge and to determine if there were differences from individuals who did not report pain; (3) To determine whether there was a difference in health-related quality of life between reported pain and no pain groups. METHODS: This study was part of a larger randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up. Data were obtained from 169 individuals diagnosed with heart failure who completed the first 6 weeks of the follow-up period. RESULTS: At time of discharge, 68% of the cohort reported pain. Both frequency and severity of pain fluctuated throughout the study for the entire cohort. There were no sociodemographic characteristics that distinguished those who reported pain from those who did not report pain. Differences in health-related quality of life were found between the reported pain and no pain groups at discharge and week 2. Depression, worry, feeling a loss of control over one's life, and feeling as if one was a burden to family were significantly more prevalent in individuals who reported pain. Differences were also found in self-rated health status, and number of prescription medications taken daily. Throughout the 6 weeks, 63 individuals (37%) consistently reported pain and 23 (14%) never reported pain. CONCLUSION: Pain was a concern for this cohort of individuals diagnosed with heart failure and was noted to impact their health-related quality of life. Further research is needed into the nature of the pain and the role of pain in self-management once patients are discharged home.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".