Impacto da doenca: aceitabilidade, efeitos teto e chao e confiabilidade de um instrumento na insuficiencia cardiaca
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it