Cognitive Impairment in Patients with Heart Failure: An International Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Cognitive impairment (CI) in heart failure (HF) patients has mostly been studied in single countries in specific health care settings. Sociodemographic and clinical predictors of the global CI and CI dimensions are still unclear. We described CI in a diverse HF population recruited in several countries and in different health care settings and investigated sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with the global and specific CI dimensions in HF patients. Methods and results A secondary analysis from the baseline data of the Wii-HF trial. Patients (n = 605) were enrolled in Sweden, Italy, Israel, The Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. We used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to evaluate CI and the 6 minute walk test (6MWT) to measure exercise capacity. Patients were on average 67 years old (SD, 12), and 86% were in New York Heart Association Class II and III. The mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 24 (SD, 4), and 67% of patients had at least a mild CI. The item evaluating short-term memory had a considerable proportion of low scoring patients (28.1%). Worse CI was associated with patients' older age, lower education, and lower 6MWT scores (R2 = 0.27). CI dimension scores were differently associated with specific clinical and demographic variables, but the 6MWT scores were associated with five out of seven CI dimension scores. Conclusions CI is an important problem in HF patients, with specific challenges in regard to memory. Exercise capacity is a modifiable factor that could be improved in HF patients with the potential to improve cognition and other outcomes in this population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".