Quality of life for patients supported on a left ventricular assist device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are mechanical pumps implanted into patients at risk of dying from Stage D heart failure. These devices not only increase survival time, they also significantly improve quality of life. Implantation of a LVAD improves hemodynamics and reduces congestion in both the pulmonary and peripheral vasculature. Improvements in forward blood flow are probably responsible for the significant reduction in the severity of dyspnea and fatigue postimplant. Quality of life is a subjective evaluation and includes aspects of physical, mental and social functioning. Quality of life is significantly improved after implantation of a LVAD, changes little over the duration of support and improves again following heart transplantation. Patients who are discharged home on support report significantly better quality of life than patients who remain in hospital. At home patients can resume physical, mental and social activities that were compromised preimplant. A significant decline in functional ability while on support may be a trigger for patients to initiate discussions regarding LVAD withdrawal. While the bulk of evidence was generated during the era of pulsatile support, preliminary information suggests similar results can be anticipated for patients supported on continuous-flow devices.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".