Association between Mid-Term Functionality and Clinical Severity in Patients Hospitalized for Pulmonary Embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship between clinical severity and functionality, occupational performance, and health-related quality of life in patients hospitalized with pulmonary embolism. Pulmonary embolism patients were grouped by clinical severity using the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index. Those scoring ≥160 were in the high-severity group (HSG); those scoring < 160 in the low-moderate group (LMSG). The main variables were functionality assessed by the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS), self-perception of occupational performance assessed by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), pain and fatigue assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and health-related quality of life assessed by the EuroQol-5Dimensions (EQ-5D). Patients were evaluated at hospital admission and at 1-month and 3-month follow-up. At admission, there were significant differences between groups in the WHODAS and health-related quality of life in favor of the LMSG. At 1-month and at 3-month follow-up, there were significant differences between the LMSG and HSG in WHODAS, COMP, NRS pain, fatigue and EQ-5D scores in favor of the LMSG. An association exists between clinical severity and mid-term functionality, self-perception of occupational performance, pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life in PE patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".