Fragility syndrome in patients with chronic heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure has a prevalence of 26 million in the population, making it a global health priority. Current publications show that fragility syndrome reaches 79% in heart failure and is an independent predictor of mortality from cardiovascular disease. The study assessed the fragility by the Edmonton self-reported score and the Charlson comorbidity index in 36 hospitalized patients with chronic heart failure with a mean age of 66.58±1.65(44-86) years, including 20(55.6%) women and 16(44.4%) men. Fragility syndrome of varying severity was found in 16(45.5%) vs 20(55.5%) non-fragile patients with chronic heart failure with mean age 62.25±2.53 vs 70.05±1,87 years in both groups, respectively. We obtained the predominance in the group of fragile patients of women 10(62.5%) vs 6(37.5%) men. Fragile patients more frequently mentioned a decrease in physical activity during the last months 14(87.5%)vs 12(60.0%) non-fragile cases. The quality of sleep was different in the groups, so that fragile patients had more frequently a duration of sleep ≤5 hours - 9(56.3%) cases, while in the non-fragile group predominated those with 7-8 hours of sleep 8(40.0 %) patients. The mean value of the Charlson Comorbidity Index was 5.3±0.5 points.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".