Children and Adults With Congenital Heart Disease Lost to Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) require lifelong care. However, the duration of cardiology follow-up in children and adults with CHD is unknown. We sought to determine the proportion of children and young adults with CHD receiving outpatient cardiology care and to identify predictors of lack of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of individuals born in 1983 and alive at age 22 years who were diagnosed with CHD in Quebec, Canada, before 6 years of age (n=643). Patients and outpatient visits were identified with the use of the provincial physician's claims database. Three age groups were examined for the presence of outpatient cardiology follow-up: 6 to 12, 13 to 17, and 18 to 22 years. CHD lesions were classified as severe (n=84; 13%), simple shunts (n=390; 61%), and "other" lesions (n=169; 26%). Failure to receive cardiac follow-up after the 6th, 13th, and 18th birthday occurred in 28%, 47%, and 61%, respectively. Among those with severe lesions, only 79% were seen after the 18th birthday. However, the majority of subjects visited primary care physicians in all age groups, and 93% remained in contact with the healthcare system into early adulthood. Predictors of lack of cardiology follow-up in adulthood included male sex, a nonsevere lesion, and a history of follow-up outside a university hospital setting. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of cardiology follow-up begins during childhood, even among those with severe lesions. This occurs despite patients being in contact with other healthcare providers. Improved communication with primary care physicians may reduce the proportion of patients lost to cardiac follow-up.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".