Repair of Congenital Heart Disease with Associated Pulmonary Hypertension in Children: What are the Minimal Investigative Procedures? Consensus Statement from the Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Task Forces, Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute (PVRI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standardization of the diagnostic routine for children with congenital heart disease associated with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH-CHD) is crucial, in particular since inappropriate assignment to repair of the cardiac lesions (e.g., surgical repair in patients with elevated pulmonary vascular resistance) may be detrimental and associated with poor outcomes. Thus, members of the Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Task Forces of the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute decided to conduct a survey aimed at collecting expert opinion from different institutions in several countries, covering many aspects of the management of PAH-CHD, from clinical recognition to noninvasive and invasive diagnostic procedures and immediate postoperative support. In privileged communities, the vast majority of children with congenital cardiac shunts are now treated early in life, on the basis of noninvasive diagnostic evaluation, and have an uneventful postoperative course, with no residual PAH. However, a small percentage of patients (older at presentation, with extracardiac syndromes or absence of clinical features of increased pulmonary blood flow, thus suggesting elevated pulmonary vascular resistance) remain at a higher risk of complications and unfavorable outcomes. These patients need a more sophisticated diagnostic approach, including invasive procedures. The authors emphasize that decision making regarding operability is based not only on cardiac catheterization data but also on the complete diagnostic picture, which includes the clinical history, physical examination, and all aspects of noninvasive evaluation.
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 | 0.031 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".