The Registry and Follow-Up of Complex Pediatric Therapies Program of Western Canada: A Mechanism for Service, Audit, and Research after Life-Saving Therapies for Young Children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Newly emerging health technologies are being developed to care for children with complex cardiac defects. Neurodevelopmental and childhood school-related outcomes are of great interest to parents of children receiving this care, care providers, and healthcare administrators. Since the 1970s, neonatal follow-up clinics have provided service, audit, and research for preterm infants as care for these at-risk children evolved. We have chosen to present for this issue the mechanism for longitudinal follow-up of survivors that we have developed for western Canada patterned after neonatal follow-up. Our program provides registration for young children receiving complex cardiac surgery, heart transplantation, ventricular assist device support, and extracorporeal life support among others. The program includes multidisciplinary assessments with appropriate neurodevelopmental intervention, active quality improvement evaluations, and outcomes research. Through this mechanism, consistently high (96%) follow-up over two years is maintained.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it