Attitudes and Practices of Cardiologists and Surgeons Who Manage HLHS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a survey to determine which management options pediatric cardiologists and cardiac surgeons in North America discuss and recommend when counseling parents after the diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS). METHODS: Pediatric cardiologists and cardiac surgeons across North America were asked to complete an anonymous, Internet-based survey about their attitudes and practices regarding the management of HLHS. RESULTS: We contacted 1621 pediatric cardiologists and surgeons, of whom 749 (46%) completed the survey. When counseling parents of newborns with HLHS, 99.7% of respondents discussed staged palliative surgery, 67% discussed cardiac transplantation, and 62.2% discussed compassionate care without surgery. Only a minority (14.9%) discussed all of those options. Staged palliative surgery was recommended over cardiac transplantation or compassionate care without surgery by 76.2% of respondents. When counseling parents after prenatal diagnosis of HLHS, 98.8% of respondents discussed continuation of pregnancy with staged palliative surgery after birth, 53.5% discussed continuation of pregnancy with cardiac transplantation after birth, 56.9% discussed continuation of pregnancy with compassionate care after birth, and 74.3% discussed termination of pregnancy. Only 36.5% discussed all of those options. Continuation of pregnancy with staged palliative surgery after birth was recommended over the other options by 56% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Virtually all North American pediatric cardiologists and cardiac surgeons surveyed discuss a surgical intervention when counseling parents about the care of their child or fetus with HLHS. However, only a minority discuss all options. Most physicians recommend staged palliative surgery for management of HLHS.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".