MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041678833 · doi:10.1177/0883073811402073

Abnormal Brain Structure and Function in Newborns With Complex Congenital Heart Defects Before Open Heart Surgery: A Review of the Evidence

2011· review· en· W2041678833 on OpenAlexaff
Mallory Owen, Michael Shevell, Annette Majnemer, Catherine Limperopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingMedicineBrain developmentIntervention (counseling)Brain damagePediatricsFetusPopulationCardiologyPregnancyNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Newborns with complex congenital heart defects are at high risk for developing neurological abnormalities. It is important to understand the timing, progression, and extent of these abnormalities to better elucidate their potential impact on neurodevelopment, and their implications for early screening and intervention. This review synthesizes the recent literature describing neurological and neurobehavioral abnormalities observed in fetuses and newborns before cardiac surgery. A considerable proportion of newborns with complex congenital heart defects exhibit neurobehavioral and electrophysiological abnormalities preoperatively. Likewise, conventional neuroimaging studies reported that a high percentage of this population experienced brain injury. Advanced neuroimaging modalities indicated that fetuses showed delayed third trimester brain growth, and newborns showed impaired white matter maturation, reduced N-acetylaspartate, and increased lactate. These findings suggest a fetal or early postnatal onset of impaired brain growth and development. Consequently, reliable methods for early screening and subsequent developmental intervention must be implemented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207