MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972140227 · doi:10.1111/pan.12295

Anesthetic considerations for neonates undergoing modified <scp>B</scp>lalock‐<scp>T</scp>aussig shunt and variations

2013· review· en· W1972140227 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Holtby

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShunt (medical)Hypoplastic left heart syndromeHemodynamicsHeart diseaseIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first Blalock-Taussig (BT) shunt was reported in 1944, and during the last 70 years, the procedure has evolved with the development of new materials and devices, and surgical approaches. It has, however, remained central to the palliation of neonates with complex congenital heart disease. The indications have expanded from the original aim of alleviating cyanosis and the pathophysiological results of chronic hypoxemia. They now include lesions with single ventricles, and rehabilitation of small pulmonary arteries. The physiology and hemodynamics of BT shunt circulations are very complex, and adverse hemodynamic events can be difficult to recognize. The consequences of shunt failure can be fatal, and the mortality (3-15%) and morbidity remain distressingly high even in the current era. Neonates undergoing BT shunt procedures or undergoing noncardiac surgery with this anatomy are challenging for the anesthesiologists to manage. There is a significant incidence of periprocedural cardiac arrest, often related to myocardial ischemia. A clear understanding of the anatomy and physiology is important. Any discussion of BT shunt in the current era has to include consideration of hypoplastic left heart syndrome and 'single ventricle' physiology.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207