Cognitive impairment and self-care in heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent chronic disease in older adults that requires extensive self-care to prevent decompensation and hospitalization. Cognitive impairment may impact the ability to perform HF self-care activities. We examined the association between cognitive impairment and adherence to self-care in patients hospitalized for acute HF. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 577 patients (mean age = 71 years, 44% female) hospitalized for HF at five medical centers in the United States and Canada. MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS: Participants were interviewed for information on self-reported adherence to self-care using the European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale. We assessed cognitive impairment in three domains (memory, processing speed, and executive function) using standardized measures. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were obtained through medical record review. Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between cognitive impairment and self-care practices adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: A total of 453 patients (79%) were impaired in at least one cognitive domain. Average adherence to self-care activities among patients with global cognitive impairment did not differ significantly from those without cognitive impairment (30.5 versus 29.6; 45-point scale). However, impaired memory was associated with lower self-care scores (P = 0.006) in multivariable models. CONCLUSION: Cognitive impairment is highly prevalent among older patients hospitalized for HF. Memory impairment is associated with poorer adherence to self-care practices. Screening for memory impairment in patients with HF may help to identify patients at risk for poor self-care who may benefit from tailored disease management programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".