Imaging the adult with congenital heart disease: a multimodality imaging approach—position paper from the EACVI
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in the diagnosis and management of congenital heart disease have led to a marked improvement in the survival of adult with congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients. However, ACHD patients are a heterogeneous population, with a large spectrum of anatomic substrates even within specific lesions. In addition, the nature of previous surgery and other intervention is highly variable rendering each patient unique and residual anatomic and haemodynamic abnormalities are very common. As the ACHD population continues to age, acquired heart disease will also require cardiac imaging assessment. It is increasingly recognized in ACHD community that the diagnostic utility of a multimodality cardiovascular approach is greater than the sum of individual tests. In ACHD patients, diagnostic information can be obtained using a variety of diagnostic tools. The aims of this document are to describe the role of each diagnostic modality in the care of ACHD patients and to provide guidelines for a multimodality approach. The goal should be to provide the most appropriate and cost-effective diagnostic pathway for each individual ACHD patient.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it