Heart Failure and Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease from 15 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of mortality and associated with significant morbidity in adults with congenital heart disease. We sought to assess the association between HF and patient-report outcomes in adults with congenital heart disease. Methods and Results As part of the APPROACH-IS (Assessment of Patterns of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults with Congenital Heart disease-International Study), we collected data on HF status and patient-reported outcomes in 3959 patients from 15 countries across 5 continents. Patient-report outcomes were: perceived health status (12-item Short Form Health Survey), quality of life (Linear Analogue Scale and Satisfaction with Life Scale), sense of coherence-13, psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and illness perception (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire). In this sample, 137 (3.5%) had HF at the time of investigation, 298 (7.5%) had a history of HF, and 3524 (89.0%) had no current or past episode of HF. Patients with current or past HF were older and had a higher prevalence of complex congenital heart disease, arrhythmias, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, other clinical comorbidities, and mood disorders than those who never had HF. Patients with HF had worse physical functioning, mental functioning, quality of life, satisfaction with life, sense of coherence, depressive symptoms, and illness perception scores. Magnitudes of differences were large for physical functioning and illness perception and moderate for mental functioning, quality of life, and depressive symptoms. Conclusions HF in adults with congenital heart disease is associated with poorer patient-reported outcomes, with large effect sizes for physical functioning and illness perception. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02150603.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".