A multicenter randomized single-blinded clinical trial to investigate the effects of an individualized home-based cognitive training program in patients with chronic heart failure: the SYNAPSE protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure patients are at high risk of cognitive deficits, which adds to the cardinal symptoms and can make the clinical picture even more challenging. Although various interventions, including pharmacological and lifestyle-based approaches, can help mitigate these deficits, many patients do not receive adequate treatment due to under-referral, limited access to care, or insufficient resources. This highlights the need for complementary and accessible strategies to support cognitive functioning in the heart failure population. Cognitive training is a safe and flexible way to help maintain and improve cognitive functioning in adults. However, the effects of individualized cognitive training in individuals with heart failure remain underexplored. METHODS: The SYNAPSE trial is a multicenter, single-blinded controlled trial with a cross-over design that aims to assess the effects of an individualized home-based cognitive training program on cognitive function in adults with heart failure. Fifty-four chronic heart failure participants aged 50 and over will be randomized to one of two arms, both including cognitive training and standard of care. The trial consists of 6 weeks of cognitive training (1 h 30/week), 6 weeks of standard of care, and three 2-week assessment times, for a total duration of 18 weeks. The primary outcome concerns executive functions, with global cognition and three neuropsychological composite z-scores as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence on the effects of individualized cognitive training on cognitive functioning in patients with chronic heart failure. Moreover, its findings will inform on how to manage cognitive deficits in this population. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov NCT05223426. Registered on March 2, 2022.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".