Assessment of cognitive function in elderly patients with heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) tests for the identification of cognitive deficit (CD) in elderly patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study with an observational design involving 43 elderly patients with HF of both sexes, treated by the Unified Health System, who were able to understand and follow the study instructions. A sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire and the MMSE and MoCA neurocognitive tests were applied. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 67 years; 67.44% were male; 53.49% were white; 58.14% had 1-4 years of schooling; 58.14% had an income of half to one minimum wage; 55.81% were married; 53.49% had a family history of HF; 90.7% denied smoking; 83.72% denied alcohol intake; 65.12% did not practice physical activity; 83.72% were hypertensive; 30.23% were diabetic; 57.89% had LVEF ≥ 50%; 39.53% have NYHA II; and 88.37% did not have a pacemaker. In the identification of CD, the MMSE test detected it in 25.58% of the patients, while the MoCA test identified it in 23.26% (p=0.043). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that the MMSE test performed better than the MoCA test in the identification of CD in elderly patients with HF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".