Risk and Triggers for Exacerbation of Congestive Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Congestive heart failure exacerbations can be triggered by a variety of factors, many of which are preventable. Understanding these risks is crucial for effective management and prevention strategies .Aim: To assess risk and triggers for exacerbation of congestive heart failure. Research design: A descriptive research design was utilized in the study. Setting: Emergency Heart Unit and cardiovascular medicine department at Assiut University Heart Hospital. Sample: A purposive sample of 67 adult patients diagnosed with heart failure were included. Tools: Three tools were used to collect data Tool I: Congestive Heart Failure Patient Assessment sheet, Tool II: Triggers for exacerbation of congestive heart failure & Tool III: Ottawa Heart Failure Risk Score. Results: (65.7 %) of the studied patients their age ranged between 50 to less 65yrs. (50.7%) of studied patients had left side heart failure & (46.3%) their total length of stay ranged from 5 to 10 days & (35.8%) of the studied patients had high risk for exacerbation. Regarding triggers (70.1%) were non-complied with their medications, (50.7%) had high sodium intake & (52.2%) of them had worsening in renal function. Conclusion: The main triggers for exacerbation of congestive heart failure were medication non-compliance, worsening in renal function, high sodium intake, electrolyte imbalances, respiratory infection and cardiac arrhythmia. Recommendation: It is important to emphasize on the role of nurse to educate patients with heart failure about triggers for exacerbation of congestive heart failure to prevent congestive heart failure deterioration. Key words: Congestive heart failure, Exacerbation, Triggers.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".