Adult Congenital Heart Disease Patients Experience Similar Symptoms of Disease Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of objective data on the symptoms characterizing disease activity among adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD). The purpose of this study was to elicit the most important symptoms from patients across the spectrum of ACHD and to examine whether reported symptoms were similar across the spectrum of ACHD as a foundation for creating a patient-reported outcome measure(s). METHODS AND RESULTS: We constructed a 39-item survey using input from physicians specializing in ACHD to assess the symptoms patients associate with disease activity. Patients (n=124) prospectively completed this survey, and the results were analyzed based on underlying anatomy and disease complexity. A confirmatory cohort of patients (n=40) was then recruited prospectively to confirm the validity of the initial data. When grouped based on underlying anatomy, significant differences in disease-related symptom rankings were found for only 6 of 39 symptoms. Six symptoms were identified which were of particular significance to patients, regardless of underlying anatomy. Patients with anatomy of great complexity experienced greater overall symptom severity than those with anatomy of low or moderate complexity, attributable exclusively to higher ranking of 5 symptoms. The second patient cohort had symptom experiences similar to those of the initial cohort, differing in only 5 of 39 symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified 6 symptoms relevant to patients across the spectrum of ACHD and remarkable homogeneity of patient experience, suggesting that a single disease-specific patient-reported outcome can be created for quality and outcome assessments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".