Randomised pilot study comparing a coach to SMARTPhone reminders to aid the management of heart failure (HF) patients: humans or machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ambulatory management of congestive heart failure (HF) continues to be a challenging clinical problem. Recent studies have focused on the role of HF clinics, nurse practitioners and disease management programmes to reduce HF readmissions. This pilot study is a pragmatic factorial study comparing a coach intervention, a SMARTPHONE REMINDER system intervention and BOTH interventions combined to Treatment as USUAL (TAU). We determined that both modalities were acceptable to patients prior to randomisation. Fifty-four patients were randomised to the four groups. The COACH group had no readmissions for HF 6 months after enrolment compared with 18% for the SMARTPHONE REMINDER Group, 8% for the BOTH intervention group and 13% for TAU. Medium-to-high medication adherence was maintained in all four groups although sodium consumption was lower at 3 months for the COACH and combined (BOTH) groups. This pilot study suggests a beneficial effect on rehospitalisation with the use of support measures including coaches and telephone reminders that needs confirmation in a larger trial.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".