Health-related quality of life in older patients with advanced heart failure: Findings from the SUSTAIN-IT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is a paucity of research describing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in older adults considered for advanced heart failure surgical therapies. Using data from our SUSTAIN-IT (Sustaining Quality of Life of the Aged: Heart Transplant or Mechanical Support) study, we aimed to compare HRQOL among 3 groups of older (60-80 years) patients with heart failure before heart transplantation (HT) or long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and identify factors associated with HRQOL: (1) HT candidates with MCS, (2) HT candidates without MCS, or (3) candidates ineligible for HT and scheduled for long-term MCS. Methods and Results Patients from 13 US sites completed assessments, including self-reported measures of HRQOL (EuroQol-5 Dimension Questionnaire, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12), depressive symptoms (Personal Health Questionnaire-8), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-state form), cognitive status (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and performance-based measures (6-minute walk test and 5-m gait speed). Analyses included ANOVA, χ
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".