An interactive Internet site for the management of patients with congestive heart failure.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Internet is a useful tool for improving communication between patients and their health care providers. However, no study has examined an efficient use of the Internet to improve quality of care for these patients. The purpose of this pilot study is to determine the feasibility of using an Internet-based communication tool with heart failure patients and to assess the effect of this system on the patients' quality of life. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective study was conducted among patients (n=16) attending a university-based heart failure clinic. An Internet communication Web site (www.heartfunction.com) was developed for the pilot study. The system was designed to be an information resource for patients and a daily communication method between patients and health care providers. Quality of life scores based on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) were obtained at baseline and at three months. The mean MLHFQ score was 59.75+/-1.5 at baseline and 49.87+/-1.3 at three months (P=0.093). Significant differences were found at three months in the scale items that measured relationships with friends and family (3.062 versus 2.06; P=0.03), working around the house and yard (3.68 versus 2.81; P=0.008) and side effects of medication (2.81 versus 1.93; P=0.048). All patients reported high levels of satisfaction with the Web site. CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based communication is a feasible tool for the management of heart failure patients, providing an effective medium through which health care professionals can interact with their patients. This approach may also improve patient quality of care and quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".