Historical investigation of medical treatment for adult congenital heart disease: A Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The number of adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) has increased substantially because of medical advances that are extending life expectancy beyond childhood. A historical investigation is timely not only because of this significant demographic shift, but also because stakeholder engagement is increasingly important in shaping research directions. The study questions were: From the perspective of stakeholders, what is known about the medical treatment for the adult CHD cohort in Canada and how has it changed over time? DESIGN/METHODS: We harnessed the use of historical research methods and conducted interviews with 21 key informants in order to articulate a contextualized understanding of the evolution of adult CHD treatment in Canada. The informants recruited were currently or previously located in and/or involved in treatment in seven provinces and two territories across Canada including patients, families, advocates, researchers, and practitioners located in disciplines that included cardiology, cardiovascular surgery, nursing, psychology, dietetics, and kinesiology. RESULTS: Alongside findings that highlighted the significant demographic shift, the findings highlight key themes related to temporal shifts in treatment, emergence of organizational structures and use of evidence, comprehensive approaches to care, and future directions. A critical finding that requires immediate attention is the significantly disproportionate resources to the number of adults living with CHD, and as a result, the real risk of premature death for this population. CONCLUSIONS: The insights provided behoove the community of stakeholders to think creatively on how to draw attention to the inadequacy of resources and the unique and diverse needs of this population.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".