Pregnancy-related cardiac risk in women with congenital heart disease: is it over when it's over?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: 1. Balint OH, 2. Siu SC, 3. Mason J, 4. et al . Cardiac outcomes after pregnancy in women with congenital heart disease. Heart 2010;96:1656–61. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Most women with congenital heart disease can now expect to reach childbearing age. Collectively, congenital malformations are the most common form of heart disease in pregnant women and the leading cardiac cause of maternal morbidity and mortality.1 Over the past two decades, several studies have characterised pregnancy-related changes, assessed maternal and fetal complications and identified related high-risk features. However, risk-stratification attempts have largely focused on acute pregnancy-related complications. Little is known about cardiac outcomes beyond the immediate peripartum setting. It is in this context that Balint and colleagues systematically assessed the frequency and determinants of adverse maternal cardiac events late after pregnancy in women with a broad spectrum of congenital heart malformations. A retrospective cohort study included 405 pregnancies in 318 women with congenital heart disease, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or Marfan syndrome, followed at a tertiary centre in Toronto between … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DHeart%26rft.stitle%253DHeart%26rft.issn%253D0007-0769%26rft.aulast%253DBalint%26rft.auinit1%253DO.%2BH.%26rft.volume%253D96%26rft.issue%253D20%26rft.spage%253D1656%26rft.epage%253D1661%26rft.atitle%253DCardiac%2Boutcomes%2Bafter%2Bpregnancy%2Bin%2Bwomen%2Bwith%2Bcongenital%2Bheart%2Bdisease%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fhrt.2010.202838%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F20937754%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=heartjnl&resid=96/20/1656&atom=%2Febmed%2F16%2F3%2F93.atom
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".