Review: no definite conclusions can be drawn as to the effect of psychological factors in congestive heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MacMahon KM, Lip GY. Psychological factors in heart failure: a review of the literature. Arch Intern Med2002 Mar 11 ; 162 : 509 –16. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: What are the effects of depression, anxiety, coping style, and level of social support in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF)? Studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, and PsycLIT (1965–2000) using the terms congestive heart failure, depression, anxiety, social support, coping styles, and psychology; and scanning the reference lists of identified studies. Studies were selected if they included patients ≥18 years of age with CHF due to any underlying cause and addressed issues of depression, anxiety, or social support. Studies in which disease comorbidity was insufficiently distinguished in the analysis were excluded. Data were extracted on patient demographics; cardiology status; measurement instruments; and study eligibility, quality, and outcomes. 12 studies met the selection criteria. 4 longitudinal studies investigated depression in CHF. 1 study found that after 1 year a statistically non-significant trend existed with higher mortality in patients with depression and CHF (50%) than in … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DMacMahon%26rft.auinit1%253DK.%2BM.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D162%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D509%26rft.epage%253D516%26rft.atitle%253DPsychological%2BFactors%2Bin%2BHeart%2BFailure%253A%2BA%2BReview%2Bof%2Bthe%2BLiterature%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchinte.162.5.509%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11871918%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archinte.162.5.509&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11871918&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F5%2F4%2F124.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000174270400002&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".