Cardiorespiratory Fitness Mediates Cognitive Performance in Chronic Heart Failure Patients and Heart Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared cognitive profiles in chronic heart failure patients (HF), heart transplant recipients (HT) and healthy controls (HC) and examined the relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness (V˙O2peak), peak cardiac output (COpeak) and cognitive performance. Stable HT patients (n = 11), HF patients (n = 11) and HC (n = 13) (61.5 ± 8.5 years) were recruited. Four cognitive composite scores targeting different cognitive functions were computed from neuropsychological tests: working memory, processing speed, executive functions and verbal memory. Processing speed and executive function scores were higher, which indicates lower performances in HF and HT compared to HC (p < 0.05). V˙O2peak and first ventilatory threshold (VT1) were lower in HF and HT vs. HC (p < 0.01). COpeak was lower in HF vs. HT and HC (p < 0.01). Processing speed, executive function and verbal memory performances were correlated with V˙O2peak, VT1 and peak cardiac hemodynamics (p < 0.05). Mediation analyses showed that V˙O2peak and VT1 mediated the relationship between group and processing speed and executive function performances in HF and HT. COpeak fully mediated executive function and processing speed performances in HF only. V˙O2peak and COpeak were related to cognitive performance in the entire sample. In addition, V˙O2peak and VT1 fully mediated the relationship between group and executive function and processing speed performances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".