Transcatheter Interventions in Patients With Adult Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with congenital heart disease now live well into adulthood because of advances in surgical techniques, improvements in medical management, and the development of novel therapeutic agents. As patients grow older into adults with congenital heart disease, many require catheter-based interventions for the treatment of residual defects, sequelae of their initial repair or palliation, or acquired heart disease. The past 3 decades have witnessed an exponential growth in both the type and number of transcatheter interventions in patients with congenital heart disease. With improvements in medical technology and device design, including the use of devices designed for the treatment of acquired valve stenosis or regurgitation, patients who previously would have required open-heart surgery for various conditions can now undergo percutaneous cardiac catheter-based procedures. Many of these procedures are complex and occur in complex patients who are best served by a multidisciplinary team. This review aims to highlight some of the currently available transcatheter interventional procedures for adults with congenital heart disease, the clinical outcomes of each intervention, and any special considerations so that the reader may better understand both the procedure and patients with adult congenital heart disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".