ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Using big data to search for possible geographic clustering of Congenital Heart Disease (CHD) across Australia.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several diseases show geographic clustering, giving insights into possible genetic and environmental causes. The pathogenesis of Congenital Heart Disease (CHD) remains largely unknown and analysis of geographic distribution of CHD cases lacks input from large, national-scale datasets. People with structural CHD were selected from the Australia and New Zealand CHD Registry. Of people known to be still living, from linkage with the National Death Index, addresses were geocoded and aggregated to standardised geographic regions with measures of the Australian population. Areas were described based on measures of their remoteness and driving time to hospitals. The relationship between the distribution of the CHD and Australian populations was compared with bivariate spatial correlation. Of 81,349 people with structural CHD in the Registry, 63,863 were still living and could be geocoded. Overall, most people lived in Major Cities, and within 1-hour drive from a hospital, with the proportion the same across the CHD population, the "complex CHD" population and the Australian population. Across the country, there was a strong positive correlation between the Australian population and the CHD population. There were only a small number of areas (6%) where the Australian and the CHD populations were proportionally different. Overall, there was clear evidence that the geographic distribution of the CHD population proportionally follows the general Australian population. This suggests that there is unlikely to be any spatial clusters that are driven by genetic or environmental causes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.