MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418298277

Transition of care to adult congenital heart centres: what do patients know about their heart condition?

2002· article· en· W2418298277 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Dore, Pierre de Guise, Lise‐Andrée Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTetralogy of FallotHeart diseaseReferralPediatricsEisenmenger syndromePopulationHeart failureInternal medicineFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The population of adults with congenital heart disease is growing rapidly, and the transition of care from the pediatric to the adult setting is often not optimal. OBJECTIVES: To assess the level of knowledge that adults with congenital heart disease have of their condition. METHODS: All new patients referred to an adult congenital heart centre were asked to answer questions about their clinical diagnosis, their need and reason for anti-bioprophylaxis, and their risks of pregnancy when applicable. The patient's age at first visit, source of referral and time from last visit in cardiology (defined as the last visit with a cardiologist) were also noted. RESULTS: From November 1999 to July 2000, 104 patients (42 men) were referred to the adult centre by pediatric cardiologists (56), medical cardiologists (26), general practitioners (11), dentists (two) or obstetricians (two), or they were self-referred (seven). The mean age at the time of referral was 28 11 years (range 16 to 72 years, median 24 years). The time from the last visit in cardiology varied widely from one month to 25 years (median three years), with 29 patients (28%) having had no follow-up for more than five years. Among these, 14 patients had no follow-up for more than 10 years, with six patients having been referred for complications related to their cardiac anatomy, such as heart failure (Eisenmenger, Ebstein), syncope (operated and unoperated tetralogy of Fallot) and arrhythmias (atrial septal defect, unoperated Fallot). The clinical diagnosis was completely unknown by 36 patients (34.6%), including patients with repaired Fallot (three patients), Mustard procedure (two), severe aortic stenosis (two), severe pulmonary stenosis (one), Eisenmenger (one), unoperated Fallot (one), ventricular septal defect (six) and bicuspid aortic valve (seven). Seventy-three patients (79%) knew about antibiotic prophylaxis, but 50% did not comprehend why they needed it. Many women (66%) had never discussed the risks of pregnancy with their physician. CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of adults with congenital heart abnormalities show a poor level of knowledge about their heart condition. These observations suggest the importance of structured transitional programs, the impact of which will need to be validated in prospective studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207