MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390538080 · doi:10.56305/001c.91305

Comparison of Proxy and Self-Reported Functional Ability in Heart Failure Patients with Cognitive Impairment

2024· article· en· W4390538080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristofer S. Gravenstein, Himabindu Mikkilineni, Mahazarin Ginwalla, Aman Nanda, Stefan Gravenstein, Mriganka Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Brown Hospital Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentProxy (statistics)Heart failureCognitionPsychologyMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyNeuroscienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Heart failure (HF) patients often experience cognitive impairment that negatively impacts self-management ability, predisposing these individuals to worse post-hospitalization outcomes. Patient proxies may have more insight into a patient's self-management capability especially in the context of patient cognitive impairment. Here, we incorporate proxy input to evaluate associations between patient- and proxy-reported capacity for instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) stratified along a patient's cognitive function in an older hospitalized heart failure population. Methods: We conducted a quality improvement study in older HF inpatients with cognitive impairment determined by Mini-Cog. Functional activity performance has been previously assessed using the Assessment of Living Skills and Resources Revision 2 (ALSAR), a validated index where higher numerical scores associate with increasing dependence in completing IADL and risk for needing a more structured living environment, nursing home placement, hospitalization, and death. We assessed ALSAR with patient self-report and proxy-report (range 0-44 lower scores equate to better performance) and calculated the absolute difference (ALSAR difference, lower scores show stronger agreement between patients and proxies). Patients' Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores, among which scores less than 26 suggest clinically significant cognitive impairment, were correlated with ALSAR difference. Results: Median patient age was 74 years. Forty-two percent were female among our sample of 30 hospitalized HF patients with cognitive impairment. Median patient ALSAR score of 4 (range 2-7) differed from median proxy ALSAR score of 7 (range 4-12) (p<0.01). Lower MoCA correlated with higher ALSAR difference (r=-0.58, p<0.01). Conclusions: Assessing ALSAR difference in clinical practice is feasible and it correlates to MoCA score in hospitalized HF patients with cognitive impairment, consistent with prior work. These results support the notion that proxy-input of patient IADL assessment could improve patient needs detection among HF patients with cognitive impairment. This information may enhance risk assessment, disease management and discharge planning when targeting and proactively involving proxies. Prospective studies should evaluate this novel metric and its association with patient-centered outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Brown Hospital Medicine→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→