Transition of Pediatric Patient with Congenital Heart Disease to Adult Specialty Care in the United States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) require uninterrupted lifelong specialized cardiac care, yet the transition years are a vulnerable time for these patients. Transition programs offer structured support to patients with CHD with the aim of improving CHD knowledge, independence in care, and providing an uninterrupted transfer process and integration into accredited adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) programs. Transition has three components: preparation, transfer and integration. The main barriers to successful transition program implementation are time and resources to complete transition practices and there is no best model for transition programs. Patients with CHD in the United States (US) have a lower occurrence of transfer to ACHD programs, and they experience more gaps in care during the transition years compared with Canada and Europe. Structured transfer processes to ACHD programs are common in Europe, but these, and overall transition practices in the US are not well understood. The purpose of this dissertation was to test a low resource intervention to facilitate patient preparation, identify factors that improve effective transfer, and evaluate transition practices in the US.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it