Quality of life after acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important measure of a patient's recovery after an illness. It has been suggested that different treatments may affect the HRQoL of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of an AMI on HRQoL and identify common patterns in the HRQoL assessments of post-AMI patients. METHODS: Systematic review of published studies. RESULTS: The impact of AMI on HRQoL appears to be modest. Physical capacity, work status, symptoms, functional status and general health perceptions declined the most after AMI. However, the majority of these HRQoL domains improved to normal levels with time. The severity of AMI-related symptoms, timing of HRQoL measurements after AMI and patients' age have had the most important influence on patient HRQoL after AMI. CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that HRQoL is minimally affected by AMI. However, current measurement tools may not be sensitive enough to detect changes in HRQoL after AMI.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".