Quality of life in heart failure. The heart of the matter. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association and the European Association of Preventive Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For most patients with chronic, progressive illnesses, maintaining good quality of life (QoL), with preserved functional capacity, is just as crucial as prolonging survival. Patients with heart failure (HF) experience much worse QoL and effort intolerance than both the general population and people with other chronic conditions, since they present a range of physical and psychological symptoms, including shortness of breath, chest discomfort, fatigue, fluid congestion, trouble with sleeping, and depression. These symptoms reduce patients' capacity for daily social and physical activity. Usual endpoints of large-scale trials in chronic HF have mostly been defined to evaluate treatments regarding hospitalizations and mortality, but more recently, patients' priorities and needs expressed with QoL are gaining more awareness and are being more extensively evaluated. This scientific statement aims at discussing the importance of QoL in HF, summarizing the most largely adopted questionnaires in HF care, and providing an overview on their application in trials and the potential for their transition to clinical practice. Finally, by discussing the reasons limiting their application in daily clinical routine and the strategies that may promote their implementation, this statement aims at fostering the systematic integration of the patient's standpoint in HF care.
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 | 0.032 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".