Exploring changes in functional status while waiting for transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a structural heart disease primarily associated with ageing. For people with multiple co-morbidities, surgical treatment may not be a safe or feasible option. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is indicated for patients with symptomatic AS who are at excessive risk for surgical valve replacement and are likely to derive significant benefit. Functional status can deteriorate during the time between referral and procedure because of the rapid disease progression of severe AS and varying wait-times for treatment in Canada. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to examine changes in functional status between time of eligibility assessment and TAVI procedure date. METHODS: An exploratory prospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate changes in functional status including gait speed, frailty scores and cognitive status. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients participated in the study with median age 81 years. Functional status declined between time of eligibility assessment and time of TAVI: gait speed increased by an average of 0.53 s (standard deviation (SD)=1.0, p=0.01) and frailty scores increased by an average of 0.31 (SD=0.64, p=0.01). Patients waiting longer than six weeks for TAVI had a larger decline in gait speed than patients waiting less than six weeks (p=0.02). Patients living alone had a larger increase in frailty scores compared to patients living with another adult (p=0.05). CONCLUSION: Older adults with life-limiting AS are vulnerable to changes in functional status. In the absence of TAVI wait-time benchmarks, findings may be used to facilitate individualized care and management strategies and inform health-care policy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".