Care of Adults with Congenital Heart Disease - A Challenge for the New Millennium*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The care of complex congenital heart defect (CHD) patients should be continuous through life. Medium- and high-risk patients should be seen in special facilities for grown-up congenital heart (GUCH) patients, and followed for life. CHD in the adult is different than CHD in the child. Transitional programs should be available to prepare the adolescent patient to take charge of his/her own health. The patient should be transferred smoothly from pediatric to adult care. GUCH care should be regionally anchored in special facilities (groups or sometimes individuals) willing to make a commitment to their care. Ideally, pediatric and adult cardiologists will collaborate. GUCH care should be multidisciplinary wherever possible--and certainly in supraregional centers. Surgery, diagnostic catheterization, interventional cath procedures, EP management, and even MRI should be done in selected centers with high quality services for all cases other than the most simple lesions. Care should be available at all times. Surgeons who operate on children with similar conditions should perform the most GUCH surgery. GUCH surgery should be performed in centers with adequate institutional and individual surgeon's volumes. In determining which surgeons and units have adequate volumes, both pediatric and adult volumes should be combined.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".