Prevalence and modifiable risk factors of cognitive frailty in patients with chronic heart failure in China: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive frailty (CF) is currently a significant issue, and most of the associated factors discovered in current studies are not modifiable. Therefore, it is crucial to identify modifiable risk factors that can be targeted for interventions in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and modifiable risk factors of CF in CHF patients in China. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we sequentially enrolled patients diagnosed with CHF. CF served as the dependent variable, assessed through the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Scale and the FRAIL Scale. The independent variable questionnaire encompassed various components, including general demographic information, the Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS), the Simplified Nutrition Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ). Logistic regression analysis was employed to identify independent factors contributing to CF. RESULTS: A total of 271 patients with CHF were included in the study. The overall prevalence of CF was found to be 49.4%, with 28.8% of patients exhibiting potentially reversible cognitive frailty and 20.7% showing reversible cognitive frailty. Among middle-young CHF patients, 10.7% had reversible cognitive frailty and 6.4% had potentially reversible cognitive frailty, with a prevalence of CF at 17.1%. Logistic regression analysis revealed that body mass index (OR = 0.826, 95%CI = 0.726-0.938), blood pressure level (OR = 2.323, 95%CI = 1.105-4.882), nutrition status (OR = 0.820, 95%CI = 0.671-0.979), and social support (OR = 0.745, 95%CI = 0.659-0.842) were independent factors associated with CF (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a relatively high prevalence of CF among Chinese patients diagnosed with CHF. Many factors including BMI, blood pressure level, nutrition status, and social support emerging as modifiable risk factors associated with CF. We propose conducting clinical trials to assess the impact of modifying these risk factors. The outcomes of this study offer valuable insights for healthcare professionals, guiding them in implementing effective measures to improve the CF status in CHF patients during clinical practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".