A multicentre approach for the management of adults with congenital heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: At present, the level of care for adult congenital heart disease is not completely satisfactory in many European countries including Italy. The aim of this multicentre study was to evaluate the possibility of creating an active connection among different centres involved in the care of this patient population. METHODS: This study lasted two years, from December 2002 to December 2004. It involved six clinical centres located in the north, centre and south of Italy; a research centre (ISBEM) affiliated to the National Research Centre was also involved. Each centre was supposed to contribute with written information (about their specific subject) on the web site; our target readers were physicians, nurses and patients. The intranet part of the web connection was used for a registry to be filled with very simple information (demographic data, main diagnosis, reason for hospitalisation, type of treatment) about patients hospitalised after January 2000. The aim of the registry was to get a snapshot of the composition of the treated population, and the spectrum of the lesions. RESULTS: The main results are the following: (i) the creation of the web site www.guch-italia.it which can be accessed without a specific password; (ii) the creation of a registry in which we entered the clinical information of 1,231 patients; (iii) the presentation of guidelines on the web site, extrapolated from the recommendations for the management of adults with congenital heart disease from the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus Conference. CONCLUSIONS: With this study we tried to create a national network of centres that have as an objective to optimise the assistance to patients with adult congenital heart disease, trying to make the approach as much homogeneous as possible.
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 | 0.029 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".