PHASE 2 RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF FUTURE CARE PLANNING IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HEART DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Patients with advanced heart disease typically have a poor prognosis despite optimal cardiac therapy. These patients and families rarely receive coordinated holistic assessment and future care planning (FCP). Aim(s) and method(s) This Marie Curie funded phase 2 trial seeks to explore whether a FCP intervention is acceptable, feasible and deliverable to patients (and families) with advanced heart disease following a recent unscheduled hospital admission. Patients with an unscheduled admission for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or heart failure (HF) were screened using a prognostic scoring tool. Patients with a 12 month estimated mortality risk of 20% or greater were randomly allocated to either early (upon discharge) or delayed (after 12 weeks) FCP for 12 weeks. The FCP intervention combines holistic needs-assessment by a cardiologist with creation of a written/shared FCP and nurse-led care in the community. Primary outcome is quality of life of patients and carers assessed using questionnaires. Results We recruited 50 patients (32 carers) – 22% with ACS, 68% HF and 10% valvular heart disease. There were 5 deaths and 5 withdrawals. For the whole cohort mean age is 81.1 years (SD=8.6), 60% male, mean Charlson comorbidity index was 4.2 (SD=1.7), median Canadian frailty scale=5 (Mildly frail). Intervention and follow up is currently on-going. Conclusion(s) Findings demonstrate that the intervention and outcome measures were feasible and deliverable. Further analysis will provide invaluable information on the nature and feasibility of a larger clinical trial sufficiently powered to address hard clinical end-points.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".