Congenital Heart Disease (CHD) in Seniors: a Retrospective Study Defining a Brand New Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With improved surgical techniques and medical therapy, patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) are now expected to achieve normal life expectancies. As a result, a new cohort of senior patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) is emerging which has not been well characterized. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review of patients with moderate to complex CHD over the age of 60 years in Southern Alberta. We examined the number, length, and reasons for hospitalizations, and identified common adult comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients with CHD who were 60 years or older were identified. The average age was 67.9 ± 6.6 years, with the majority of patients having moderate CHD. The most common cardiac comorbidities were arrhythmia, hypertension, and heart failure, which were also the most common reasons for hospital admission. There were 1.85 admissions per 10 patient-years, with a median length of stay of 6.0 (3.8-10.5) days. CONCLUSIONS: With advanced age, the ACHD population is at risk of developing significant medical burden from acquired cardiac comorbidities, resulting in hospitalization. This analysis provides insight into disease characteristics of seniors with CHD. Further studies are needed to better understand this population and the association with geriatric syndromes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".