Impacto da doenca: aceitabilidade, efeitos teto e chao e confiabilidade de um instrumento na insuficiencia cardiaca
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the acceptability, ceiling/floor effects, and the reliability of the instrument for measuring the Impact of the Disease on the Daily Life of Patients with Valvular Disease (IDCV) when applied to 135 patients with heart failure (HF). Acceptability was evaluated by the percentage of unanswered items and by the proportion of patients who responded to all items; the ceiling/floor effects by the percentage of patients who scored in the top of 10% best and worst results of the scale, respectively. Reliability was estimated by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient) and stability of the measure (intraclass correlation coefficient - ICC). All patients responded to all items. Ceiling/floor effects evidenced were of moderate magnitude. The Cronbach's alpha was satisfactory for the majority of the domains and ICC>; 0.90 in all the domains. The IDCV proved to be an easy to understand questionnaire, with evidence of reliability in patients with HF.
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 | 0.016 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".