Rationale, design and methodology of APPROACH-IS II: International study of patient-reported outcomes and frailty phenotyping in adults with congenital heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have received increasing prominence in cardiovascular research and clinical care. An understanding of the variability and global experience of PROs in adults with congenital heart disease (CHD), however, is still lacking. Moreover, information on epidemiological characteristics and the frailty phenotype of older adults with CHD is minimal. The APPROACH-IS II study was established to address these knowledge gaps. This paper presents the design and methodology of APPROACH-IS II. METHODS/DESIGN: APPROACH-IS II is a cross-sectional global multicentric study that includes Part 1 (assessing PROs) and Part 2 (investigating the frailty phenotype of older adults). With 53 participating centers, located in 32 countries across six continents, the aim is to enroll 8000 patients with CHD. In Part 1, self-report surveys are used to collect data on PROs (e.g., quality of life, perceived health, depressive symptoms, autonomy support), and explanatory variables (e.g., social support, stigma, illness identity, empowerment). In Part 2, the cognitive functioning and frailty phenotype of older adults are measured using validated assessments. DISCUSSION: APPROACH-IS II will generate a rich dataset representing the international experience of individuals in adult CHD care. The results of this project will provide a global view of PROs and the frailty phenotype of adults with CHD and will thereby address important knowledge gaps. Undoubtedly, the project will contribute to the overarching aim of improving optimal living and care provision for adults with CHD.
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 | 0.089 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".