The significance of cardiac surgery scars in adult patients with congenital heart disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scars resulting from heart surgery mark patients for life, yet their effect on patients' well-being is unknown. AIM: To determine what spheres of life may be affected by surgical chest scarring. METHODS: A preliminary questionnaire asked 10 random patients at our adult congenital heart disease clinic to describe personal consequences (if any) of having a cardiac surgery scar. Results provided the basis to design another questionnaire which asked specific questions and attempted to rate the effect of scars on identified areas of concern. RESULTS: One hundred consecutive patients attending the clinic (53 males) aged 18 to 50 (mean 27 years) participated. Sixty percent reported that the scar affected them less now than in adolescence. The body was perceived as disfigured by 58%. The scar was concealed by 48% of patients. Attention to the scar made 19% of patients feel negative, 58% neutral and 23% positive. Chest scarring was associated with decreased self-esteem in 20% and decreased self-confidence in 18% of patients. Patients reported less effect of chest scarring on their choice of career, success in life, friendships, sexual relationships and choice of recreation. Sixty-one percent reported a positive effect on appreciation of health. CONCLUSION: Scars resulting from heart surgery may have a considerable effect on patients' body image and several aspects of everyday life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".