Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease Following Hospitalization (from APPROACH-IS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this international study, we (1) compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) who had versus had not been hospitalized during the previous 12 month, (2) contrasted PROs in patients who had been hospitalized for cardiac surgery versus nonsurgical reasons, (3) assessed the magnitude of differences between the groups (i.e., effect sizes), and (4) explored differential effect sizes between countries. APPROACH-IS was a cross-sectional, observational study that enrolled 4,028 patients from 15 countries (median age 32 years; 53% females). Self-report questionnaires were administered to measure PROs: health status; anxiety and depression; and quality of life. Overall, 668 patients (17%) had been hospitalized in the previous 12 months. These patients reported poorer outcomes on all PROs, with the exception of anxiety. Patients who underwent cardiac surgery demonstrated a better quality of life compared with those who were hospitalized for nonsurgical reasons. For significant differences, the effect sizes were small, whereas they were negligible in nonsignificant comparisons. Substantial intercountry differences were observed. For various PROs, moderate to large effect sizes were found comparing different countries. In conclusion, adults with CHD who had undergone hospitalization in the previous year had poorer PROs than those who were medically stable. Researchers ought to account for the timing of recruitment when conducting PRO research as hospitalization can impact results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".