The Utility of Cognitive Screening in Asian Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The prevalence of undiagnosed cognitive impairment in patients with heart failure is alarmingly high in Asia. There is still no consensus on cognitive screening tools to detect cognitive impairment in the Asian heart failure population. The clinical implications based on our systematic review may help to improve cognitive screening practice for patients with heart failure in Asia. Methods This review is registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42021264288). Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, the Web of Science, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data in English and Chinese literatures concerning heart failure and cognitive impairment. Results The search yielded 21 eligible studies. Only in five studies, cognitive brief tests, including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Mini-Cog, were used as cognitive screening tools for Asian patients with heart failure. In the rest 16 studies, brief cognitive tests were used as screening tools for global cognition. Only one study validated screening tests against a gold standard formal neuropsychological assessment test battery. Among these studies, patients with heart failure tended to perform worse than patients without heart failure. The presence of cognitive impairment in patients with heart failure is associated with poorer self-care, quality of life, and hospital readmission. Conclusion Brief cognitive tests have been used in Asian patients with heart failure and these tests are frequently used as a measure of global cognitive function for cognitive screening. However, validating brief cognitive tests against a gold standard formal neuropsychological assessment in Asian patients with heart failure is lacking. Future studies need to address methodological issues to validate cognitive screening measures in a larger population of Asian patients with heart failure. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
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 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".