Using Heart Failure Instruments to Determine when to Refer Heart Failure Patients to Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) or the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) are associated with traditionally used scores for heart failure patients -- specifically, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), an overall health visual analog scale (VAS), and the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM). Furthermore, we sought to determine whether the PPS or the ESAS provided additional information on quality of life, symptom severity, or prognosis above that provided by the traditional scores for patients with heart failure. METHODS: We administered the ESAS, MLHFQ, VAS, PPS, and SHFM in a shuffled manner to 78 New York Heart Association Functional Classification (NYHA-FC) Ill-IV ambulatory heart failure patients. Pearson's r correlation was used to determine whether the scores from the ESAS and PPS correlated with the scores from the MLHFQ, VAS, and SHFM. RESULTS: The sample was predominately male (62.8 percent), mean age 60.1 +/- 13 years, with a diagnosis of idiopathic cardiomyopathy (45 percent). Moderate correlations were found between the ESAS and MLHFQ (r = 0.483, p < 0.01), the ESAS and VAS (r = -0.345, p < 0.01), the PPS and MLHFQ (r = -0.54, p < 0.01), and the PPS and VAS (r = 0.53, p < 0.01). There was no significant correlation between the PPS and SHFM. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that administration of the ESAS and PPS provides additional information on symptom severity and functional decline for patients with heart failure. Standardized administration of these scales may aid in the assessment and evaluation of heart failure patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".