Cirrhotic Cardiomyopathy: Does it Contribute to Chronic Fatigue and Decreased Health-Related Quality of Life in Cirrhosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and fatigue have been reported in patients with cirrhosis. The presence of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy and the attendant poor cardiac response to physical stress may affect HRQoL and contribute to fatigue in these patients. AIMS: To evaluate the contribution of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy to HRQoL and fatigue in ambulatory cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Thirty ambulatory cirrhotic patients (14 preascitic, Child-Pugh score 5.6 +/- 0.3; 16 ascitic, Child-Pugh score 9.1 +/- 0.5) underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing and assessment of HRQoL, fatigue and depressive symptomatology. HRQoL and fatigue scores were correlated with liver disease severity, depressive symptomatology and parameters of cardiac function and exercise physiology. RESULTS: Subscales of all HRQoL measuring the effect of disease on the ability to perform physical, social and emotional roles were significantly impaired when compared with controls (P<0.001). The impact of fatigue, as assessed by the Fatigue Assessment Inventory, was greater in cirrhotics (4.46 versus 2.53 in healthy age-matched controls, P<0.01). Diminished HRQoL, impact of fatigue and vitality were related to depressive symptoms rather than to cardiac structural and functional abnormalities, which were present in cirrhotic patients. Poorer physical quality of life scores correlated with diminished mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Depression, rather than the presence of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy, may have contributed to the diminished HRQoL and vitality in patients with cirrhosis with or without ascites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".