Mapping the Biopsychosocial and Lifestyle Portrait of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease: A Comparative Study Across Sex and Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mental health disorders are prevalent comorbidities in adults with congenital heart diseases (CHD). This study aimed to provide a biopsychosocial portrait of overall health in adults with CHD and compare by sex and age to a general population. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 264 adults with CHD at the Montreal Heart Institute collected clinical data and self-reported lifestyle, sociodemographic, and psychological measures (the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Worry and Anxiety Questionnaire). Descriptive and comparative statistics were used to compare with local population or stratified by age and sex. Results: Anxiety scores were higher in females and younger adults with CHD, whereas depression scores show no significant differences. Although mean anxiety and depression scores in adults with CHD were similar to a Québec primary care population, subgroup comparisons show differences such as higher anxiety scores in younger adults with CHD. Fewer adults with CHD were sedentary or very active in comparison with controls, with more engaged in moderate activities. Moreover, they reported lower caffeine, alcohol, and cannabis consumption than the general population. Rates of smoking use or nonprescription medications were similar in both populations. Conclusions: This study highlights key trends in the psychological and behavioral profiles of adults with CHD, including higher anxiety among young adults and differences in physical activity and alcohol consumption compared with the general population. These findings underline the importance of a holistic approach to management of this population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".