Cardiovascular Complications of Down Syndrome: Scoping Review and Expert Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals with Down syndrome. Congenital heart disease is the most common cardiovascular condition in this group, present in up to 50% of people with Down syndrome and contributing to poor outcomes. Additional factors contributing to cardiovascular outcomes include pulmonary hypertension; coexistent pulmonary, endocrine, and metabolic diseases; and risk factors for atherosclerotic disease. Moreover, disparities in the cardiovascular care of people with Down syndrome compared with the general population, which vary across different geographies and health care systems, further contribute to cardiovascular mortality; this issue is often overlooked by the wider medical community. This review focuses on the diagnosis, prevalence, and management of cardiovascular disease encountered in people with Down syndrome and summarizes available evidence in 10 key areas relating to Down syndrome and cardiac disease, from prenatal diagnosis to disparities in care in areas of differing resource availability. All specialists and nonspecialist clinicians providing care for people with Down syndrome should be aware of best clinical practice in all aspects of care of this distinct 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 | 0.010 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".