Cut-Point for Satisfactory Adherence of the Dietary Sodium Restriction Questionnaire for Patients with Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The low or non-adherence to reduction of sodium intake has been identified as one of the main precipitating factors of heart failure (HF). The Dietary Sodium Restriction Questionnaire (DSRQ) identifies factors that can interfere with adherence to this recommendation. However, there is still no cut-point to define adherence for this questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: To identify the cut-point for satisfactory adherence to the Brazilian version of the DSRQ, (the Questionário de Restrição de Sódio na Dieta, QRSD). METHODS: Multicenter study. Patients with HF in outpatient treatment (compensated) and those treated in emergency departments due to acute HF (decompensated) were included. For the cut-point definition, the DSRQ scores were compared between groups. A ROC curve was constructed for each subscale to determine the best point of sensitivity and specificity regarding adherence. A 5% significance level was adopted. RESULTS: A total of 206 compensated patients and 225 decompensated were included. Compensated patients exhibited scores that showed higher adhesion in all subscales (all p <0.05). Scores ≥ 40 points of a total of 45 for the subscale of Attitude and Subjective Norm; scores ≤ eight of a total of 20 for Perceived Behavioral Control; and ≤ three of a total of 15 for Dependent Behavior Control were indicative of satisfactory adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evaluation of patients in these two scenarios, it was possible to determine the cut-point for satisfactory adherence to the reduction of sodium in the diet of patients with HF. Countries with similar culture could use this cut-point, as other researchers could also use the results as a reference for further studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".