Emotional intelligence and systolic blood pressure are determinants of cognitive deficits in patients with heart failure.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was designed to compare emotional intelligence (EI) and cognitive performance between patients with systolic heart failure (SHF), patients with diastolic heart failure (DHF) and healthy individuals (HI). Also to further examine the relationship between EI and cognition in patients with heart failure (HF). From April 2016 until April 2017, 96 patients diagnosed with SHF, 96 with DHF from Bahawal Victoria Hospital and Nishter Hospital, Bahawalpur and another 96 HI took part in the study in from Pakistan. Participants completed BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory and Montreal Cognitive Assessment. The results showed that patients with HF had impaired EI and cognition in contrast to HI. In comparison, patients with SHF were more impaired on EI and cognition as compared with DHF patients. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and EI were significant predictors of cognitive per formance in patients with HF. In conclusion, high SBP and low EI are significant markers of cognitive deficits in 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".