Predictors of patient-reported outcomes at discharge in patients with heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well-established that heart failure has a negative impact on quality of life. However, little is known about patient-related predictors of health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, symptoms and illness perception among patients with heart failure. AIM: To study the association between patient-related predictors and patient-reported outcome measures at discharge from hospital in a cohort of patients with heart failure. METHODS: We used data from 1506 patients with heart failure, participating in the national DenHeart Survey of patient-reported outcome measures in patients with heart disease. The potential patient-related predictors included demographic, administrative, clinical and socioeconomic factors. The patient-reported outcome measures included six questionnaires: the Short Form-12, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the EuroQol five-dimensional, five-level questionnaire, the HeartQoL, the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Data were linked to national patient registry data and medical records. We performed multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In adjusted linear regression analyses we found that a length of hospital stay of >2 days was associated with worse scores across questionnaires, except for the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. Higher comorbidity level was associated with worse scores across all questionnaires, whereas low social support was associated with worse scores across questionnaires, except for the physical domain of the Short Form-12 and the HeartQoL global score. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified length of hospital stay > 2 days, a higher comorbidity level and low social support to be associated with worse scores across questionnaires at discharge from a cardiac-related hospitalisation in patients with heart failure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".