Quality of Life for Saudi Patients With Heart Failure: A Cross-Sectional Correlational Study
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
<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> Heart failure is a major public health issue and a growing concern in developing countries, including Saudi Arabia. Most related research was conducted in Western cultures and may have limited applicability for individuals in Saudi Arabia. Thus, this study assesses the quality of life of Saudi patients with heart failure.</p> <p><strong>MATERIALS &amp; METHODS:</strong><em> </em>A cross-sectional correlational design was used on a convenient sample of 103 patients with heart failure. Data were collected using the Short Form-36 and the Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> Overall, the patients’ scores were low for all domains of Quality of Life. The Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary mean scores and SDs were (36.7±12.4, 48.8±6.5) respectively, indicating poor Quality of Life. Left ventricular ejection fraction was the strongest predictor of both physical and mental summaries.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION:</strong> Identifying factors that impact quality of life for Saudi heart failure patients is important in identifying and meeting their physical and psychosocial needs.</p>
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it