MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401382843 · doi:10.53660/prw-2433-4441

Evaluation of cognitive function in elderly patients hospitalized for heart failure with and without diabetes mellitus

2024· article· pt· W4401382843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jéssica Garcia, Lucian Batista de Batista, Carolina Magalhaes, Francisco Bandeira

Bibliographic record

VenuePeer Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternal medicineGerontologyCognitive impairmentDiseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pacientes idosos com diabetes melitus (DM) hospitalizados por insuficiência cardíaca (IC) apresentam frequentemente sinais de comprometimento cognitivo (CC). Objetivo: Avaliar a função cognitiva de idosos portadores de IC com e sem DM. Métodos: Pacientes hospitalizados (≥ 65 anos) por IC foram avaliados através de testes cognitivos: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) e Mini-Cog. Resultados:196 pacientes, com média de idade de 73,04 ± 6,04. Segundo o Mini-cog, 77% tinham CC. O escore médio do MoCA foi de 14,60 ± 5,79. De acordo com presença ou ausência de DM, foi observado associação significativa com o sexo, feminino 54,7% vs masculino 45,3% (p=0,04) e cintura abdominal, aumentada 81,3% vs normal 18,8% (p=0,02). No cenário de cognição normal pelo Mini-cog, pacientes com pré-diabetes tinham maior probabilidade de ter fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo (FEVE) normal (60,75 ± 11,15) em comparação com pacientes com diabetes (47,00 ± 14,42) e pacientes euglicêmicos (44,50 ± 19,92), p = 0,035. Conclusão: Foi encontrado elevada frequência de CC em pacientes idosos hospitalizados por IC. Pacientes com pré-diabetes sem CC tiveram maior probabilidade de apresentar FEVE preservada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 venuePeer ReviewSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207