Change in health-related quality of life among patients with a reduced ejection fraction initiating guideline-directed medical therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Management of patients with heart failure (HF) should include patient reported outcomes (PROs). The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire is self-administered with subscales to evaluate HF symptom burden, physical limitations, social limitations (recreational participation), and quality of life (QoL). Change in PROs among newly diagnosed patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) prescribed a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) and initiating guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has not been assessed. Purpose Examine PROs over 180 days of receiving GDMT for newly diagnosed HFrEF. Methods Patients (n=93, 75.3% male) were enrolled ≤10 days post-hospitalization for new onset HF; all patients had an EF ≤35% and were prescribed a WCD. Health status, as measured by PRO was assessed at baseline, day 90, and day 180. Controlling for age and EF at baseline, changes in PROs over the 180-day study period were evaluated using repeated measures modeling. Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments were used to compare adjacent timepoints. Higher scores reflect better health status. Results After controlling for age (mean 56±13.4) and baseline EF (mean 22±7.7) improvements in health status were observed. From baseline to day 90, physical limitation, symptom frequency, QoL, and the summary score all increased (Δ: 17.8, 23.7, 28.4, 23.7, respectively; all p's <0.05). From day 90 to day 180, only QoL continued to improve (Δ 7.5, p=0.001). Change in social limitations over time was not significant (p=0.42). Conclusion Patients report improved health status in the months following a new diagnosis of HFrEF when prescribed a WCD and GDMT. Change in Quality of Life Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".