Abstract 12115: Adult Congenital Heart Disease Centre Care: A Population Based Analysis of Impact on Mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The first Canadian Consensus Conference on Adult Congenital Heart Disease (ACHD) was held in l996, with proceeds published in 1998 recommending referral of ACHD care to specialized centers. Over a decade later, no study has documented that specialized ACHD care improves outcomes. We undertook an analysis to determine the impact of ACHD care on mortality. Methods: Time-series analyses from 1990-2005 were performed using the Quebec ACHD database. ACHD centers were defined as hospital centers where > 500 ACHD patients were seen yearly. The study population consisted of patients aged 18-65 years identified with CHD in the 7 years prior to the year of measurement. Patients were considered referred to an ACHD center if they visited a qualifying ACHD center in the year of measurement. Yearly referral and mortality rates were analyzed using Joinpoint regression to detect the year at which a significant change occurred, and Poisson regression to analyze time trends before and after change-points. Resul...
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".