Psychophysiological Models to Identify and Monitor Elderly with a Cardiovascular Condition: The Added Value of Psychosocial Parameters to Routinely Applied Physiological Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The steadily growing elderly population calls for efficient, reliable and preferably ambulant health supervision. Since cardiovascular risk factors interact with psychosocial strain (e.g., depression), we investigated the potential contribution of psychosocial factors in discriminating generally healthy elderly from those with a cardiovascular condition, on and above routinely applied physiological assessments. Fifteen elderly (aged 60 to 88) with a cardiovascular diagnosis were compared to fifteen age and gender matched healthy peers. Six sequential standardized lab assessments were conducted (one every two weeks), including an autonomic test battery, a 6-min step test and questionnaires covering perceived psychological state and experiences over the previous two weeks. Specific combinations of physiological and psychological factors (most prominently symptoms of depression) effectively predicted (clinical) cardiovascular markers. Additionally, a highly significant prognostic model was found, including depressive symptoms, recently experienced negative events and social isolation. It appeared slightly superior in identifying elderly with or without a cardiovascular condition compared to a model that only included physiological parameters. Adding psychosocial parameters to cardiovascular assessments in elderly may consequently provide protocols that are significantly more efficient, relatively comfortable and technologically feasible in ambulant settings, without necessarily compromising prognostic accuracy.
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) | 0.001 | 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".