Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Adults with Fontan Circulatory Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are important measures in acquired heart disease but have not been well defined in Adult Congenital Heart Disease (ACHD). Our aim was to explore the discriminatory capacity of PRO survey tools in Fontan circulatory failure (FCF). Methods: Consecutive adults were enrolled from our ambulatory clinics. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, a Fontan circulation or a hemodynamically insignificant shunt lesion, and sufficient cognitive/language abilities to complete PROs. A comprehensive package of PRO measures, designed to assess perceived health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was administered (including the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ-12], EuroQol-5-dimension [EQ5D], Short Form Health Status Survey [SF-12], self-reported New York Heart Association [NYHA] Functional Class, and Specific Activity Scale [SAS]). Results: We compared 54 Fontan patients (35 ± 10 years) to 25 simple shunt lesion patients (34 ± 11 years). The KCCQ-12 score was lower in Fontan versus shunt lesion patients (87 [IQR 79, 95] versus 100 [IQR 97, 100], p-value < 0.001). The FCF subgroup was associated with lower KCCQ-12 scores as compared with the non-FCF subgroup (82 [IQR 56, 89] versus 93 [IQR 81, 98], p-value = 0.002). Although the KCCQ-12 had the best discriminatory capacity for determination of FCF of all PRO tools studied (c-statistic 0.75 [CI 0.62, 0.88]), superior FCF discrimination was achieved when the KCCQ-12 was combined with all PRO tools (c-statistic 0.82 [CI 0.71, 0.93]). Conclusions: The KCCQ-12 questionnaire demonstrated good discriminatory capacity for the identification of FCF, which was further improved through the addition of complementary PRO tools. Further research will establish the value of PRO tools to guide management strategies in ACHD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".