Pediatric Extracorporeal Life Support in Specialized Situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to provide a systematic review of the literature regarding the use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in various specialized conditions, as part of the Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Society/Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Joint Statement on Mechanical Circulatory Support. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PubMed. STUDY SELECTION: Searches for published abstracts and articles were conducted using the following MeSH terms: extracorporeal life support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mechanical support, and pediatric or children. DATA EXTRACTION: Abstracts of all articles including case reports were reviewed; the full article was reviewed if the abstract indicated that it focused on extracorporeal life support for conditions other than primary respiratory disease or persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn and described outcomes such as survival to hospital discharge. Studies with potential overlapping patients were highlighted in the review process and summary results. DATA SYNTHESIS: Classification of recommendations and level of evidence are expressed in the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association format. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of specialized situations where extracorporeal life support is used fall into the category of class II-III evidence. Class I indications for extracorporeal life support in the pediatric population include myocarditis and in the context of acute interventions in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".