Follow-up of tetralogy of Fallot patients: tertiary centre versus satellite clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canadian Cardiovascular Society consensus guidelines recommend that tetralogy of Fallot patients be seen by a congenital cardiologist every 2 years. In Atlantic Canada, tetralogy of Fallot patients are followed up at either tertiary or satellite clinics, which are held in the community and attended by paediatric cardiologists. The effectiveness of satellite clinics in congenital cardiac disease follow-up is unproven. Our objective was to compare patient-reported quality of life measures to determine whether these were impacted by the site of follow-up. METHODS: We included patients with tetralogy of Fallot undergoing surgical repair at the Izaak Walton Killam Health Centre from 1 November, 1972 to 31 May, 2002. Quality of life surveys, SF-10 or SF-36v2, were administered to consenting patients. We analysed the subjective health status by patient age and site of follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 184 eligible patients, 72 were lost to follow-up. Of the locatable patients, 61% completed the questionnaires. In all, 90% (101 out of 112) were followed up at recommended intervals. Of the 112 (68%) patients, 76 were followed up at a tertiary clinic. These patients were older, with a mean age of 18.4 years versus 14.7 years, and scored higher on the SF-36 physical component summary (52.6 versus 45.7, p = 0.02) compared with satellite clinic patients. The SF-36 mental component summary scores were similar for patients regardless of the site of follow-up. SF-10 physical and psychosocial scores were similar regardless of the site of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Tetralogy of Fallot patients followed at either satellite or tertiary clinics have similar subjective health status.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".