Assessment of health-related quality of life in patients after acute myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Acute myocardial infarction has negative influence on patient's quality of life. The objective of the paper was to assess the health-related quality of life in the patients one month and twelve months after acute myocardial infarction and to compare it with the healthy controls. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study involved 160 patients aged from 30 to 79 and 240 healthy controls. The health-related quality of life was assessed with the Serbian version of these questionnaires: EuroQuol-5-Dimension and EuroQuolVAS. Angina pectoris was ranked according to the classification of Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used. RESULTS: The healthy controls had significantly higher average scores in EuroQuolVAS compared with the patients one month after acute myocardial infarction (74.35 +/- 9.42 vs 60.50 +/- 12.03, p<0.001), as well as twelve months afte acute myocardial infarction (74.35 +/- 9.42 vs 69.83 +/- 12.06, p<0.001). Significantly lower average ranges in EuroQuol-5-Dimension questionnaire and higher quality of life were found twelve months after acute myocardial infarction than one month after acute myocardial infarction (1.41 +/- 0.26 vs 1.53 +/- 0.26, p<0.001). The average ranges of angina pectoris were significantly lower in all the patients twelve months after acute myocardial infarction compared with the first month (0.78 +/- 0.51 vs 0.91 +/- 0.44, p<0.01). The multivariate regression analysis confirmed thrombolytic therapy, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and age to be important factors influencing health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: The patients assessed their health condition to be significantly higher twelve months after acute myocardial infarction than one month after it. The health-related quality of life was significantly higher in patients who had undergone the percutaneous intervention than in those who had been treated with the thrombolytic therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".