MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020038241 · doi:10.33448/rsd-v9i6.3321

Cognitive and self-care changes in patients with heart failure in the Amazon Region

2020· article· en· W3020038241 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Society and Development · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionHeart failureMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentConfidence intervalPsychological interventionHealth carePhysical therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyCardiologyInternal medicinePsychiatryCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart failure is characterized as the lack of blood pumping capacity performed by the heart, which is considered a public health problem worldwide. Due to HF, the individual can develop clinical aspects that impact cognitive function and, consequently, self-care. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate cognitive changes and self-care in patients affected by HF and compare it with the cognitive and self-care changes of healthy participants. This is a quantitative, epidemiological, cross-sectional case-control study carried out at an institution in the city of Belém, Pará, Brazil. The following tests were used for data collection: Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, European Heart Failure Self-care Behavior Scale (EHFScBS). Data were tabulated in Microsoft Excel 2010 and statistically treated by Epi Info version 3.5.2 with a 5% significance level and considering a 95% confidence interval in all analyzes. It was observed that patients with HF have slightly better self-care compared to patients without HF with scores obtained by EHFScBS equal to 29.7 ± 6.9 and 31.8 ± 8.2, respectively. Additionally, patients with HF showed impairments in the three cognitive domains, and women with HF demonstrated greater cognitive impairment compared to the other participants. The present study provides data to help build new approaches to interventions by the multidisciplinary team to promote better self-care and avoid cognitive impairments in patients with HF.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.262 · 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