MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13037: Self-Care Questionnaire Detects More Brain Injury in Comparison to Cognitive Screener in Heart Failure

2016· article· en· W2906538835 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary A. Woo, Bhaswati Roy, Gregg C. Fonarow, Rajesh Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureCognitionCognitive impairmentTraumatic brain injuryMedical emergencyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) patients often have poor self-care (SC) and cognitive deficits. Both factors are closely related and require brain control of important skill sets. However, it is unclear if SC or cognition are linked to injury in different brain regions or if SC vs. cognition evaluation differs in the detection of brain damage amounts. Hypothesis: To determine if a measure of SC or cognition detects more brain injury in HF. Methods: Brain diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) data were collected from 10 HF (age 56.8±8.1 years; 8 male; LVEF 26.4±11.9% NYHA class II/III) using a 3 Tesla MRI scanner, Self-care was examined with the Self-Care of Heart Failure Inventory (SCHFI), and cognition with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Using DTI data, mean diffusivity (MD; higher values=brain injury) maps were used to examine associations between SCHFI (maintenance and confidence subscales) and MoCA in HF subjects using partial correlation procedures (covariates: age and gender; uncorrected threshold p<0.005). Results: Significant negative correlations between MD and confidence scores emerged in the prefrontal cortex. hippocampus, amygdala, anterior and posterior cingulate, anterior corpus callosum, mid and posterior thalamus, posterior insula, putamen, inferior temporal lobe, and cerebral vermis, and between MD and maintenance scores in the right putamen, external and internal capsule, and right inferior temporal lobe (Figure). Significant negative correlations were observed between MD and MoCA scores in the prefrontal cortex, occipital cortex, cerebellum, and mid-inferior temporal lobe (Figure). Conclusions: HF subjects show more wide-spread and significant correlations between regional MD values/brain injury and SCHFI scores compared to MoCA values. The findings suggest that damage in cognitive and decision-making control sites better correlate with SCHFI over MoCA scores.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→