MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095569679

Clinical Epidemiology 2013:5 407–416 Clinical Epidemiology Cognitive impairment and self-care in heart failure

2016· article· en· W7095569679 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureCognitive impairmentEpidemiologyCognitionCohort studyClinical epidemiologyDecompensationCohortProspective cohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent chronic disease in older adults that requires extensive self-care to prevent decompensation and hospitalization. Cognitive impairment may impact the ability to perform HF self-care activities. We examined the association between cognitive impairment and adherence to self-care in patients hospitalized for acute HF. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting and participants: A total of 577 patients (mean age = 71 years, 44 % female) hospi-talized for HF at five medical centers in the United States and Canada. Measurements and methods: Participants were interviewed for information on self-reported adherence to self-care using the European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale. We assessed cognitive impairment in three domains (memory, processing speed, and executive function) using standardized measures. Patients ’ demographic and clinical characteristics were obtained through medical record review. Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the asso-ciation between cognitive impairment and self-care practices adjusting for demographic and clinical factors.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.363 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207