Specialized Adult Congenital Heart Disease Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend specialized care for adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients. In reality, few patients receive such dedicated care. We sought to examine the impact of specialized care on ACHD patient mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined referral rates to specialized ACHD centers and ACHD patient mortality rates between 1990 and 2005 in the population-based Quebec Congenital Heart Disease database (n=71 467). This period covers several years before and after the publication of guidelines endorsing specialized care for ACHD patients. A time-series design, based on Joinpoint and Poisson regression analyses, was used to assess the changes in annual referral and patient mortality rates. The association between specialized ACHD care and all-cause mortality was assessed in both case-control and cohort studies. The time-series analysis demonstrated a significant increase in referral rates to specialized ACHD centers in 1997 (rate ratio, +7.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], +6.6% to +8.2%). In parallel, a significant reduction in expected ACHD patient mortality was observed after year 2000 (rate ratio, -5.0%;95% CI, -10.8% to -0.8%). In exploratory post hoc cohort and case-control analyses, specialized ACHD care was independently associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94) and a reduced odds of death (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.08-0.97), respectively. This effect was predominantly driven by patients with severe congenital heart disease (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: A significant increase in referrals to specialized ACHD centers followed the introduction of the clinical guidelines. Moreover, referral to specialized ACHD care was independently associated with a significant mortality reduction. Our findings support a model of specialized care for all ACHD patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".