Cancer mortality in children surviving congenital heart interventions: A study from the Pediatric Cardiac Care Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Children with congenital heart defects (CHD) have shorter life expectancy than the general population. Previous studies also suggest that patients with CHD have higher risk of cancer. This study aims to describe cancer-related mortality among patients with a history of CHD interventions using the Pediatric Cardiac Care Consortium (PCCC), a large US cohort of such patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals (<21 years) who underwent interventions for CHD in the PCCC from 1982 to 2003. Patients surviving their first intervention were linked to the National Death Index through 2020. Multivariable models assessed risk of cancer-related death, adjusting for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Patients with/without genetic abnormalities (mostly Down syndrome [DS]) were considered separately, due to expected differential risk in cancer. RESULTS: Among the 57,601 eligible patients in this study, cancer was the underlying or contributing cause of death for 208; with 20% among those with DS. Significantly increased risk of cancer-related death was apparent among patients with DS compared to the non-genetic group (aHR: 3.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.52-5.24, p < .001). For the group with non-genetic abnormalities, the highest association with cancer-related death compared to those with mild CHD was found among those with more severe CHD (severe two-ventricle aHR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.04-3.20, p = .036, single-ventricle aHR: 4.68, 95% CI: 2.77-7.91, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with more severe forms of CHD are at increased risk for cancer-related death. Despite our findings, we are unable to distinguish whether having CHD raises the risk of cancer or reduces survival.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".