Patient-reported outcomes at hospital discharge from Heart Centres, a national cross-sectional survey with a register-based follow-up: the DenHeart study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient reported health status, which includes symptom burden, functional status and quality of life, is an important measure of health. Differences in health status between diagnostic groups within cardiology have only been sparsely investigated. These outcomes may predict morbidity, mortality, labour market affiliation and healthcare utilisation in various diagnostic groups. A national survey aiming to include all cardiac diagnostic groups from a total Heart Centre population has been designed as the DenHeart survey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: DenHeart is designed as a cross-sectional survey with a register-based follow-up. All diagnostic groups at the five national Heart Centres are included during 1 year (15 April 2013 to 15 April 2014) and asked to fill out a questionnaire at hospital discharge. The total eligible population, both responders and non-responders, will be followed in national registers. The following instruments are used: SF-12, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, EQ-5D, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ), HeartQoL and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. The following variables are collected from national registers: action diagnosis, procedures, comorbidity, length of hospital stay, type of hospitalisation, visits to general practitioners and other agents in primary healthcare, dispensed prescription medication, vital status and cause of death. Labour market affiliation, sick leave, early retirement pension, educational degree and income will be collected from registers. Frequency distributions and multiple logistic regression analyses will be used to describe and assess differences in patient reported outcomes at hospital discharge between diagnostic groups and in-hospital predicting factors. Cox proportional hazards regression models with age as the time scale will be used to investigate associations between patient reported outcomes at baseline and morbidity/mortality, labour market affiliation and healthcare utilisation after 1 year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study has been approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency: 2007-58-0015/30-0937 and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01926145). Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer reviewed publications and conference presentations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".