Return to work following adverse cardiovascular events in adults with congenital heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) are at increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including stroke, myocardial infarctions, and heart failure. Following survival of MACE, an important metric is re-entry to the workforce. This study sought to characterize the differences in return-to-work (RTW) characteristics between MACE survivors with CHD and those in the general population. Linking Danish health and administrative registries, a cohort of adults with CHD who survived a MACE between the years of 1992–2017 were matched 10:1 by age at MACE, year of MACE, and sex to MACE survivors without CHD. Logistic regression assessed working status relative risk at three-, six-, and 12- months after the MACE event. Cox regression hazard ratio characterized time to RTW and maintained RTW. During the study period, 538 CHD patients survived MACE. These patients were matched to 4930 MACE survivors without CHD. The adjusted odds ratios of having returned to work were 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73–1.14) of employment at three months, 0.77 (95% CI: 0.61–0.96) at six months, and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.61–0.96) at 12 months. Of those who required governmental disability payments after MACE and admission for longer than one day, the adjusted hazard ratio of maintained RTW was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.69–0.99) for CHD patients compared to the general population. Patients with CHD who survive a MACE have evidence of impaired RTW compared to those without CHD. Further research is needed to understand and augment functional recovery in this complex 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".