MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031961263 · doi:10.1111/ctr.13985

Post‐transplant survival in adult congenital heart disease patients as compared to dilated and ischemic cardiomyopathy patients; an analysis of the thoracic ISHLT registry

2020· article· en· W3031961263 on OpenAlexaff
Aisling Kinsella, Vivek Rao, Chun‐Po Steve Fan, Cedric Manlhiot, Josef Stehlik, Heather J. Ross, Ana Carolina Alba

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineDilated cardiomyopathyHazard ratioProportional hazards modelHeart transplantationCardiologyEtiologyCardiomyopathyPopulationHeart diseaseIschemic cardiomyopathyHeart failureSurvival analysisSurvival rateSurgeryConfidence intervalEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have shown that adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) is associated with high early post-transplant mortality but improved long-term survival in comparison to the overall heart transplant population. We aimed to evaluate survival outcomes of ACHD in adult transplant recipient patients as specifically compared to ischemic (ICM) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) groups. Adult heart transplant recipients between 2004 and 2014 were identified from the ISHLT registry. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate overall survival, 1-year survival, and 1-year conditional survival among etiology groups and multivariable Cox proportional hazard (PH) models to assess the association between etiology of cardiomyopathy and 1-year and long-term all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality. We included 30 130 heart transplant recipients. One-year survival was 78.3% in ACHD, 84.3% in ICM, and 86.2% in DCM patients (P < .001). By multivariable analysis, during first post-transplant year, ACHD and ICM patients were at significantly higher mortality risk than DCM. Adjusted post-transplant mortality risk, conditional on 1-year survival, was not statistically different in ACHD and DCM while ICM patients had 17% higher long-term mortality risk than DCM patients leading to overall worse outcomes in ICM patients. Therefore, ICM patients have poorer outcomes in comparison to both DCM and ACHD patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207