MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as a Bridge to Pediatric Heart Transplantation

2015· article· en· W1945922626 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMedicineHeart transplantationVentricular assist deviceListing (finance)TransplantationHematopoietic cellCardiologyInternal medicineEmergency medicineHeart failureSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current organ allocation algorithms direct hearts to the sickest recipients to mitigate death while waiting. This may result in lower post-transplant (Tx) survival for high-risk candidates mandating close examination to determine the appropriateness of different technologies as a bridge to Tx. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed all patients (<18 years old) from the Pediatric Heart Transplant Study (PHTS) database listed for heart Tx (1993-2013) to determine the effect of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support at the time of listing and the time of Tx on waitlist mortality and post-Tx outcomes. Eight percent of patients were listed on ECMO, and within 12 months, 49% had undergone Tx, 35% were deceased, and 16% were alive waiting. Survival at 12 months after listing (censored at Tx) was worse in patients on ECMO at listing (50%) compared with ventricular assist device at listing (76%) or not on ECMO or ventricular assist device at listing (76%; P<0.0001). Two hundred three (5%) patients underwent Tx from ECMO; 135 (67%) had been on ECMO since listing, and 67 (33%) had deteriorated to ECMO support while waiting. Survival after Tx was worse in patients who underwent Tx from ECMO (3 years: 64%) versus on ventricular assist device at Tx (3 years: 84%) or not on ECMO/ventricular assist device at Tx (3 years: 85%; P<0.0001). Patients transplanted from ECMO at age <1 year had the worst survival. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients requiring ECMO support before heart Tx have poor outcomes. Prioritization of donor hearts to children waitlisted on ECMO warrants careful consideration because of ECMO's high pre- and post-Tx mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.224 · 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