High-Performing Fontan Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Fontan patients exhibit decreased exercise capacity. However, there is a subset of high-performing Fontan (HPF) patients with excellent exercise capacity. Objectives: tool using exercise data; 2) examine clinical factors associated with HPF patients; and 3) examine late outcomes in HPF patients. Methods: quartile. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to investigate factors associated with the HPF and Cox regression was used to examine the association between HPF patients and late outcomes (composite of death or listing for cardiac transplant). Results: = 0.01). Patients with at least moderate atrioventricular valve regurgitation, protein-losing enteropathy, or who were using psychiatric medications, were less likely to be an HPF patient. After a mean follow-up of 3.7 years, 46 (5.7%) patients developed a composite endpoint. HPF had a lower risk of death or listing for cardiac transplant (HR: 0.06 [95% CI: 0.01-0.25]). Conclusions: Patients with HPF have more favorable outcomes when compared to patients with lower exercise capacity. This large registry data highlights the role of exercise testing in providing personalized care and surveillance post-Fontan.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".