Patient factors and geographic barriers influencing excess time between paediatric and adult CHD care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Over 90% of children with CHD survive into adulthood and require lifelong cardiology care. Delays in care predispose patients to cardiac complications. We sought to determine the time interval to accessing adult CHD care beyond what was recommended by the referring paediatric cardiologist (excess time) and determine risk factors for prolonged excess time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including all patients in the province of Alberta, Canada, age 16-18 years at their last paediatric cardiology visit, with moderate or complex lesions. Excess time between paediatric and adult care was defined as the interval (months) between the final paediatric visit and the first adult visit, minus the recommended interval between these appointments. Patients whose first adult CHD appointment occurred earlier than the recommended interval were assigned an excess time of zero. RESULTS: We included 286 patients (66% male, mean age 17.6 years). Mean excess time was 7.9 ± 15.9 months. Twenty-nine (10%) had an excess time > 24 months. Not having a pacemaker (p = 0.03) and not needing cardiac medications at transfer (p = 0.02) were risk factors for excess time >3 months. Excess time was not influenced by CHD complexity. DISCUSSION: The mean delay to first adult CHD appointment was almost 8 months longer than recommended by referring paediatric cardiologists. Not having a pacemaker and not needing cardiac medication(s) were risk factors for excess time > 3 months. Greater outpatient resources are required to accommodate the growing number of adult CHD survivors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".