MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417444761 · doi:10.36082/jhcn.v5i2.2208

SELF-MANAGEMENT AND SEVERITY OF ANGINA PECTORIS AMONG CORONARY HEART DISEASE PATIENT

2025· article· W4417444761 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emil Huriani, Fitria Rahmi Meilani, Devia Putri Lenggogeni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Cardiovascular Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnginaCoronary heart diseaseNonprobability samplingFramingham Risk ScoreUnivariate analysisBivariate analysisPolyclinicDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of coronary heart disease (CHD) in Indonesia continues to increase. Padang ranks 10th with the most CHD patients in Indonesia. The clinical manifestation of CHD is angina pectoris. One of the efforts in minimizing angina pectoris is self- management. This study aimed to determine the relationship between self-management and the degree of angina pectoris in coronary heart disease patients at the cardiac polyclinic of RSUD dr. Rasidin Padang. This study used a quantitative research design with a cross-sectional approach. Sampling in this study used purposive sampling technique with 106 respondents. The instruments used were CSMS (Coronary self-management scale) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina grade (CCS). The results of univariate analysis showed that the patient's self-management was in the good range and the highest degree was in the angina II category. The bivariate analysis test using the chi-square correlation test showed a significant relationship between self-management and the degree of angina pectoris with significance 0.000 (? <0.005), meaning that there was a significant relationship between self-management and the degree of angina pectoris and coefficient relation was 0.95 (strong relation). The limitation of this study was the cross-sectional design used where the measurement of the dependent variable and the independent variable was carried out simultaneously so that it cannot prove the existence of cause and effect between the two variables. It is hoped that the hospital through health workers can increase health education in an effort to increase adequate knowledge related to self-management of coronary heart disease patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Cardiovascular Nursing→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→