Can Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Improve Cognitive Function? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cognitive impairment (CI) comprises a measurable deficit of different cognitive domains (memory, attention, problem solving, and motor speed), and has a high prevalence among congestive heart failure (CHF) patients. Only a few pilot studies have investigated the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on cognitive performance. The purpose of this systematic review is to outline and evaluate results of published studies that assess the impact of CRT on neuropsychological function in CHF. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for articles containing the following terms: CRT, cognition, cognitive, and neurocognitive. A data extraction was performed according to our objective from each study. Effect sizes were computed using Hedges' g. The within-group formula was used for cohort studies with a pre-post design, while the between-group formula was used for studies that compared independent groups. Multiple outcomes were combined in domain-specific synthetic scores as well as in a global score for each study, and a fixed-effect model was used to estimate the summary effects. RESULTS: Only three studies met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The results of these studies were discordant and methodological limitations were identified. The meta-analysis of cognitive outcomes showed a nonsignificant overall effect (Hedges' g = 0.131, 95% confidence interval: -0.16 to 0.422), while the summary effects on executive functioning and attention reached statistical significance (Hedges' g = 0.374, 95% confidence interval: 0.085-0.662 and Hedges' g = 0.343, 95% confidence interval: 0.051-0.635, respectively). CONCLUSION: CI and related negative consequences have been largely documented in patients with heart failure but very few studies have assessed the plausible benefits of CRT on patients' cognitive function. Despite the statistical significance of the domain-specific pooled effects, their validity and clinical relevance is lacking due to methodological limitations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".