Neurocognitive, Functional, and Health Outcomes at 5 Years of Age for Children After Complex Cardiac Surgery at 6 Weeks of Age or Younger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This work provides neurocognitive, functional, and health outcomes for 5-year survivors of early infant complex cardiac surgery, including those with chromosomal abnormalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 85 children (22.4% mortality), 61 received multidisciplinary, individual evaluation and parental questionnaires at 5 years. Full-scale, verbal, and performance IQ scores were compared by using analysis of variance among children who received different surgeries (arterial switch, 20; Norwood for hypoplastic left heart syndrome, 14; simple total anomalous pulmonary venous connection, 6; miscellaneous, 21; and chromosomal abnormalities, 8). Predictions from mental scores at 2 years for IQ scores at 5 years were determined. RESULTS: Children with chromosomal abnormalities had lower full-scale and verbal IQs at 5 years than other survivors, with no differences found among the remaining groups. For children post-Norwood, performance IQ scores remained lower than for children after the arterial-switch operation. Prediction of full-scale IQ (<70) from 2-year mental scores for all 61 children were as follows: sensitivity, 87.5%; specificity, 88.1%; positive predictive value, 53.8%; and negative predictive value, 97.9%. For full-scale IQ of <85, predictions were 90.0%, 87.8%, 78.3%, and 94.7%, respectively. For those 53 without chromosomal abnormalities, full-scale IQ <70, respective predictions were 86.7%, 90.0%, 28.6%, and 97.8%, and for full-scale IQ <85, respective predictions were 85.7%, 89.7%, 75.0%, and 94.6%. Parental report indicated good health in 80% and adequate function in 67% to 88% of the children, although health-utilization numbers suggest that these reports are optimistic. CONCLUSIONS: Five-year full-scale and verbal IQs were similar among groups, excluding those with chromosomal abnormalities. Children with chromosomal abnormalities had the lowest scores. Excluding those with chromosomal abnormalities, the mean mental scores for the children as a group tended to increase from 2 to 5 years of age, with an overall high percentage of correct classifications at 2 years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".