Lessons learned from a multidisciplinary heart failure clinic for older women: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: many heart failure disease management programs are primarily conducted in the male population. An approach incorporating disciplines such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, social work, dietary and pharmacy in a standardized clinical pathway merits further investigation in older women with HF. METHODS: in this randomized controlled trial, female patients in the intervention group received the multidisciplinary clinical pathway consisting of a series of 12 visits over a 6-week period in an outpatient clinic. RESULTS: ninety-one community dwelling female patients aged 63 to 89 were randomized. Comparison of change between the two groups from baseline in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score did not show a difference (P<0.470). There was also no difference between the two groups in functional outcome as measured by change from baseline by the Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (P<0.321). The treatment group had significantly more hospitalizations, and cardiologist visits during the study period (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to conduct a randomized study in a frail community-based older female population and to test a complex multidisciplinary pathway. Future studies should provide insight into the optimal intensity and duration of heart failure management programs with optimal targeting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".