Utilization of Home Telemonitoring in Patients 75 Years of Age and Over with Complex Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a chart review on all patients who had received home telemonitoring after an admission for heart failure at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. During a 5 year period (2005-2009) a total of 645 patients had home monitoring. A total of 594 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study and were divided into two groups: Group 1 (<75 years of age) contained 350 patients and Group 2 (≥75 years of age) contained 244 patients. There was no significant difference between the groups in the mean duration of follow-up by the telemonitoring team: it was 126.5 days in Group 1 and 125.4 days in Group 2 (P = 0.89). There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of times that titration of diuretic medications occurred, the number of times that titration of cardiac medications occurred, the number of interventions for abnormal vital signs or the number of times that patients were called by the telemonitoring staff. Emergency room visits, hospitalizations and the number of deaths were also not different between two groups. Thus in the telemonitoring programme, the pattern of usage by older patients was similar to that of the younger ones. Based on the present study, the elderly do not require more resources nor do they require them for longer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".