Improving medical care and prevention in adults with congenital heart disease—reflections on a global problem—part I: development of congenital cardiology, epidemiology, clinical aspects, heart failure, cardiac arrhythmia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today most patients with congenital heart defects (CHD) survive into adulthood. Unfortunately, despite relevant residua and sequels, follow-up care of adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) is not performed in specialized and/or certified physicians or centres. Major problems in the long-term course encompass heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, heart valve disorders, pulmonary vascular disease, infective endocarditis, aortopathy and non-cardiac comorbidities. Many of them manifest themselves differently from acquired heart disease and therapy regimens from general cardiology cannot be transferred directly to CHD. It should be noted that even simple, postoperative heart defects that were until recently considered to be harmless can lead to problems with age, a fact that had not been expected so far. The treatment of ACHD has many special features and requires special expertise. Thereby, it is important that treatment regimens from acquired heart disease are not necessarily transmitted to CHD. While primary care physicians have the important and responsible task to set the course for adequate diagnosis and treatment early and to refer patients to appropriate care in specialized ACHD-facilities, they should actively encourage ACHD to pursue follow-up care in specialized facilities who can provide responsible and advanced advice. This medical update emphasizes the current data on epidemiology, heart failure and cardiac arrhythmia in ACHD.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".