MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3069587548 · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.017278

Change of Health‐Related Quality of Life Over Time and Its Association With Patient Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure

2020· article· en· W3069587548 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nariman Sepehrvand, Anamaria Savu, John A. Spertus, Jason R.B. Dyck, Todd J. Anderson, Jonathan G. Howlett, D. Ian Paterson, Gavin Y. Oudit, Padma Kaul, Finlay A. McAlister, Justin A. Ezekowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsAlliance for Canadian Health Outcomes Research in DiabetesLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta InnovatesAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureQuality of life (healthcare)Intensive care medicineAssociation (psychology)Health related quality of lifeInternal medicineGerontologyDiseaseNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Improving health‐related quality of life is an important goal in the management of patients with heart failure (HF). Defining health‐related quality of life changes over time in patients with HF with preserved (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction and showing their association with other important clinical events could support the use of health‐related quality of life as a measure of quantifying HF care. Methods and Results In the Alberta HEART (Heart Failure Aetiology and Analysis Team) cohort (n=621), patients were categorized into 4 subgroups: healthy controls (n=98), at risk (n=163), HFpEF (n=191), and HF with reduced ejection fraction (n=169). The change of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), EuroQOL 5 dimensions, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Anemia over 12 months, and its association with a composite of death or rehospitalization within 3 years were assessed. At baseline, the KCCQ overall summary score was 73 (interquartile range, 53–86) in HFpEF and 78 (interquartile range, 56–90) in HF with reduced ejection fraction ( P =0.22). Overall, 30.5% of patients with HF experienced ≥5‐point improvements and 32.4% had ≥5‐point worsening in KCCQ overall summary score at 12 months, which did not differ between HFpEF and HF with reduced ejection fraction ( P =0.23). Clinical events were higher in patients with HF who had a decline in KCCQ over 12 months as compared with those with stable KCCQ scores (70.2% versus 52.0%, P =0.012). The results were similar for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Anemia and EuroQOL 5 dimensions. Conclusions In patients with HF, the KCCQ quantified clinically meaningful changes over time, which were associated with important clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF. Given the observed variability and prognostication in different patient trajectories, health‐related quality of life measures could be valuable for quantifying the quality of care in healthcare systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207