Exploring the Feasibility of the Creyos Cognitive Assessment Tool Among Patients With Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study is to explore the feasibility of the Creyos Cognitive Assessment Tool (Creyos, Toronto, Canada) as a cognitive testing instrument for patients with heart failure (HF). Background Identifying appropriate methods for cognitive testing among patients with HF is important to enable further study of their high prevalence of cognitive decline. Methods A total of 40 participants, composed of 30 outpatients with HF (75%) and 10 patients without HF (25%), were asked to complete all 12 online Creyos tests, which collectively measure short-term memory (STM), reasoning, concentration, and verbal ability. The participants had the option to complete the study at home or in person at the hospital if they did not have computer/tablet access. We explored completion rate and completion time and evaluated how our participants compared to a sex/age-matched healthy population (obtained from Creyos). Results Among 45 patients who consented to participate, five withdrew, and 40 (89%; median age: 68 {interquartile range (IQR): 59-76} years; 78% men) completed all 12 tests of cognition. Overall, the participants had a positive experience with the tool, with a median time for completion of 25.9 minutes. When compared to age- and sex-matched norms, 73% of participants with HF showed marked impairment (>1.5 standard deviations {SDs}), and 93% showed mild impairment (>1 standard deviation) on at least one test. Individuals with HF performed worse on the reasoning and verbal ability domains but better on the STM domain when compared to the age/sex-matched healthy population data provided by Creyos. Conclusion It is feasible to use Creyos as a cognitive assessment tool in the population with HF, and it may enable further exploration of the connections between cognitive function and heart failure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".