Collaborative care models in adult congenital heart disease transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While multidisciplinary collaboration is a tenant of quality heart failure care and critical to the success of transplant programs, this essay challenges the temptation to shoehorn adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients into preexisting processes and paradigms. We explore the development of more relevant models, purposefully designed to improve ACHD transplant volumes and outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Globally, the rapid acceleration of ACHD patients living with and dying from HF stands in stark contrast to their access to transplant. Inferior early outcomes after ACHD transplant remain an undeniable barrier. And yet while all large registry datasets attest to this statistic, a few centers have achieved results comparable to those in acquired heart disease. This despite increases in both ACHD candidate complexity and referrals for Fontan Circulatory Failure. Perhaps something in their approach to care delivery is key?. SUMMARY: Alone, neither ACHD nor transplant programs can provide optimal management of HF in ACHD. A siloed approach is similarly inadequate. Building new ACHD-HF-Transplant teams, centered on the patient and supplemented by ad hoc expert partnerships, is an exciting approach that can improve outcomes, create a high-quality training environment, and in our experience, is a truly rewarding way of working together.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".