Evaluation of the prevalence and severity of pain in patients with stable chronic heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the prevalence and severity of pain in patients with chronic stable heart failure (HF) in an outpatient clinic setting. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study evaluating symptoms of generalized or specific pain in patients with chronic stable heart failure. A standardized questionnaire (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) was administered during a routine outpatient clinic visit. The severity of pain and other symptoms were assessed on a 10 point scale with 10 being the worst and 0 representing no symptoms. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients [age 56 ± 13 years, 51 males, 11 females, mean ejection fraction (EF) 33% ± 17%] completed the assessment. Thirty-two patients (52%) reported any pain of various character and location such as chest, back, abdomen or the extremities, with a mean pain score of 2.5 ± 3.1. Patients with an EF less than 40% (n = 45, 73%) reported higher pain scores than patients with an EF greater than 40% (n = 17, 27%), scores were 3.1 ± 3.3 vs 1.2 ± 1.9, P < 0.001. Most frequent symptoms were tiredness (in 75% of patients), decreased wellbeing (84%), shortness of breath (SOB, 76%), and drowsiness (70%). The most severe symptom was tiredness with a score of 4.0 ± 2.8, followed by decreased wellbeing (3.7 ± 2.7), SOB (3.6 ± 2.8), and drowsiness (2.8 ± 2.8). CONCLUSION: Pain appears to be prevalent and significantly affects quality of life in HF patients. Adequate pain assessment and management should be an integral part of chronic heart failure management.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".