Diagnostic value of patterns of symptoms and signs of heart failure: application of latent class analysis with concomitant variables in a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis of heart failure (HF) requires a compatible clinical syndrome and demonstration of cardiac dysfunction by imaging or functional tests. Since individual symptoms and signs are generally unreliable and have limited value for diagnosing HF, the authors aimed to identify patterns of symptoms and signs, based on findings routinely collected in current clinical practice, and to evaluate their diagnostic value, taking into account the a priori likelihood of HF. DESIGN: Cross-sectional evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: 1115 community participants aged ≥45 years from Porto, Portugal, in 2006-2008. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Patterns were identified by latent class analysis, using concomitant variables to predict class membership. Patterns used 11 symptoms/signs, covering dimensions of congestion and hypoperfusion. Sex, age, education, obesity, diabetes and history of myocardial infarction or HF were included as concomitants. RESULTS: Bayesian information criteria supported a solution with three patterns: 10.1% of participants followed a pattern with symptoms of troubled breathing and signs of congestion (pattern 1), 27.8% a pattern characterised mainly by signs of congestion (pattern 2) and 62.1% were essentially asymptomatic (pattern 3); model fit was best when including concomitant variables. The likelihood ratio of patterns 1, 2 and 3 for left ventricular systolic dysfunction was 3.4, 1.1 and 0.6, and for left ventricular diastolic dysfunction 3.5, 1.4 and 0.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of concomitant variables can improve the diagnostic value of the symptoms and signs patterns and, consequently, improve the usefulness of the symptoms and signs for diagnosis and as an outcome measure. The potential for application in other settings of complex diagnoses is very high. These models were shown to be useful to standardise and quantify the probabilistic reasoning in clinical diagnosis, upon which decisions of further investigation and even treatment need to be made.
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 | 0.025 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".