MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4370743: Sex Differences in Cognitive and Psychosocial Outcomes in Adults with Moderate to Complex Congenital Heart Disease Compared to Controls

2025· article· en· W4415789771 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cristina Cabrera‐Mino, Holli A. DeVon, Jamil Aboulhosn, Mary-Lynn Brecht, Kristen R. Choi, Nancy A. Pike

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialNeurocognitiveWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleCognitionAnxietyNeuropsychologyHeart diseaseIntelligence quotientComprehension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Adults with moderate-to-complex congenital heart disease (CHD) show psychosocial and neurocognitive deficits, particularly in mood, anxiety, and cognitive domains. However, sex differences in neuropsychological outcomes remain underexplored. Objective: To examine sex-based differences in cognitive and psychosocial outcomes in adults with CHD compared to age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Methods: 80 adults (20 female CHD, 20 male CHD, 20 female controls, 20 males controls) were recruited. Cognitive tests were administered (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA], Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence [WASI-II]) and questionnaires assessing anxiety, depression, and perceived social support were completed. Group comparisons were completed using independent samples t-tests, and the relationships between psychosocial and cognitive variables were examined using Pearson correlations. Results: The CHD group showed significantly worse neurocognitive performance in multiple domains (visuospatial/executive function (VISEXEC), attention, language, WASI-II full-scale IQ, verbal comprehension (VCI), perceptual reasoning (PRI) subscales), and higher anxiety and depression scores compared to controls (all p values < .030). The male CHD group performed significantly worse on the MoCA (p < .001), VISEXEC (p < .001), VCI (p = .05), PRI (p < .001), full-scale IQ (p = .002), and reported greater anxiety, depression, and lower social support (p = .049) compared to male controls. The female CHD group had significantly lower scores on the MoCA (p = .003), executive function (p = .001), attention (p = .002), WASI-II subtasks matrix reasoning (p < .001), vocabulary (p = .006), block design (p = .007), with no differences found in psychosocial measures compared to controls. In correlational analyses, among males with CHD, greater social support was associated with better executive function (r = 0.49, p < .03). Conclusions: Sex differences in adults with CHD are apparent in some cognitive and psychosocial domains compared to controls. Findings highlight the significance of social support and its association with executive function in adult males with CHD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→