Perspectives on caregiver-reported outcomes in cardiovascular diseases today and in future healthcare services: a statement of Association of Cardiovascular Nursing & Allied Professions (ACNAP), Association for Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC), the Heart Failure Association (HFA), ESC Council on Stroke, and Global Heart Hub, the International Alliance of Heart Patient Organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rapidly ageing population implies an increasing demand for informal caregivers. Caregiver-reported outcomes (CROs) can provide valuable insights into caregivers' experiences of their own health, the burden of tasks, and the need for support. This scientific statement provides a comprehensive overview of CROs in populations with cardiovascular diseases (CROsCVD). The existing CROs measure impact of caregiving; caregiver skills and preparedness; caregiver emotional and psychological impact; and caregiver support. The integration of CROs into clinical practice, alongside the development of more specific and culturally adaptive tools, will enhance the recognition of caregivers as key stakeholders in CVD management.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".