Patient-Reported Outcomes in Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy
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
BACKGROUND: Technological advancements of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have created today's potential for extending the lives of patients with end-stage heart failure. Few studies have examined the effect of LVAD therapy on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health status, quality of life, and anxiety/depression, despite poor PROs predicting mortality and rehospitalization in patients with heart failure. In this systematic review, we provide an overview of available evidence on the impact of LVAD therapy on PROs and discuss recommendations for clinical research and practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic literature search identified 16 quantitative studies with a sample size ≥10 (mean±SD age=50.1±12.6 years) that examined the impact of LVAD therapy on PROs using a quantitative approach. Initial evidence suggests an improvement in health status, anxiety, and depression in the first few months after LVAD implantation. However, PRO scores of patients receiving LVAD therapy are still lower for physical, social, and emotional functioning compared with transplant recipients. These studies had several methodological shortcomings, including the use of relatively small sample sizes, and only a paucity of studies focused on anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of studies on the patient perspective of LVAD therapy. To advance the field of LVAD research and to optimize the care of an increasingly growing population of patients receiving LVAD therapy, more well-designed large-scale studies are needed to further elucidate the impact of LVAD therapy on PROs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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