Surveillance of adults with congenital heart disease: Current guidelines and actual clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common birth defect with prevalence of 0.8%. Thanks to tremendous progress in medical and surgical practice, nowadays, >90% of children survive into adulthood. Recently European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American College of Cardiology (ACC)/ American Heart Association (AHA) issued guidelines which offer diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations for the different defect categories. However, the type of technical exams and their frequency of follow-up may vary largely between clinicians and centres. We aimed to present an overview of available diagnostic modalities and describe current surveillance practices by cardiologists taking care of adults with CHD (ACHD). METHODS AND RESULTS: A questionnaire was used to assess the frequency cardiologists treating ACHD for at least one year administrated the most common diagnostic tests for ACHD. The most frequently employed diagnostic modalities were ECG and echocardiography for both mild and moderate/severe CHD. Sixty-seven percent of respondents reported that they routinely address psychosocial well-being. CONCLUSION: Differences exist between reported current clinical practice and published guidelines. This is particularly true for the care of patients with mild lesions. In addition, some differences exist between ESC and American guidelines, with more frequent surveillance suggested by the Americans.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".