The nomenclature, definition and classification of cardiac structures in the setting of heterotaxy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2000, The International Nomenclature Committee for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease was established. This committee eventually evolved into the International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease. The working component of this international nomenclature society has been The International Working Group for Mapping and Coding of Nomenclatures for Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease, also known as the Nomenclature Working Group. The Nomenclature Working Group created the International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code, which is available for free download from the internet at [http://www.IPCCC.NET]. In previous publications from the Nomenclature Working Group, unity has been produced by cross-mapping separate systems for coding, as for example in the treatment of the functionally univentricular heart, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or congenitally corrected transposition. In this manuscript, we review the nomenclature, definition, and classification of heterotaxy, also known as the heterotaxy syndrome, placing special emphasis on the philosophical approach taken by both the Bostonian school of segmental notation developed from the teachings of Van Praagh, and the European school of sequential segmental analysis. The Nomenclature Working Group offers the following definition for the term "heterotaxy": "Heterotaxy is synonymous with 'visceral heterotaxy' and 'heterotaxy syndrome'. Heterotaxy is defined as an abnormality where the internal thoraco-abdominal organs demonstrate abnormal arrangement across the left-right axis of the body. By convention, heterotaxy does not include patients with either the expected usual or normal arrangement of the internal organs along the left-right axis, also known as 'situs solitus', nor patients with complete mirror-imaged arrangement of the internal organs along the left-right axis also known as 'situs inversus'." "Situs ambiguus is defined as an abnormality in which there are components of situs solitus and situs inversus in the same person. Situs ambiguus, therefore, can be considered to be present when the thoracic and abdominal organs are positioned in such a way with respect to each other as to be not clearly lateralised and thus have neither the usual, or normal, nor the mirror-imaged arrangements."The heterotaxy syndrome as thus defined is typically associated with complex cardiovascular malformations. Proper description of the heart in patients with this syndrome requires complete description of both the cardiac relations and the junctional connections of the cardiac segments, with documentation of the arrangement of the atrial appendages, the ventricular topology, the nature of the unions of the segments across the atrioventricular and the ventriculoarterial junctions, the infundibular morphologies, and the relationships of the arterial trunks in space. The position of the heart in the chest, and the orientation of the cardiac apex, must also be described separately. Particular attention is required for the venoatrial connections, since these are so often abnormal. The malformations within the heart are then analysed and described separately as for any patient with suspected congenital cardiac disease. The relationship and arrangement of the remaining thoraco-abdominal organs, including the spleen, the lungs, and the intestines, also must be described separately, because, although common patterns of association have been identified, there are frequent exceptions to these common patterns. One of the clinically important implications of heterotaxy syndrome is that splenic abnormalities are common. Investigation of any patient with the cardiac findings associated with heterotaxy, therefore, should include analysis of splenic morphology. The less than perfect association between the state of the spleen and the form of heart disease implies that splenic morphology should be investigated in all forms of heterotaxy, regardless of the type of cardiac disease. The splenic morphology should not be used to stratify the form of disease within the heart, and the form of cardiac disease should not be used to stratify the state of the spleen. Intestinal malrotation is another frequently associated lesion that must be considered. Some advocate that all patients with heterotaxy, especially those with isomerism of the right atrial appendages or asplenia syndrome, should have a barium study to evaluate for intestinal malrotation, given the associated potential morbidity. The cardiac anatomy and associated cardiac malformations, as well as the relationship and arrangement of the remaining thoraco-abdominal organs, must be described separately. It is only by utilizing this stepwise and logical progression of analysis that it becomes possible to describe correctly, and to classify properly, patients with heterotaxy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".