Validity of the LaFarge equation for estimation of oxygen consumption in ventilated children with congenital heart disease younger than 3 years—A revisit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The LaFarge equation is the most commonly used equation to estimate oxygen consumption (Vo(2)) in patients of all ages with congenital heart disease, although it was generated in patients older than 3 years. We sought to determine the validity of the LaFarge equation in estimating Vo(2) in children younger than 3 years undergoing cardiac catheterization with general anesthesia. METHODS: Vo(2) was measured directly using respiratory mass spectrometry in 75 sedated, paralyzed, and mechanically ventilated children in the pediatric cardiac catheterization laboratory. Age ranged from 0.13 to 24 years; 40 children being younger than 3 years. Estimated values for Vo(2) were calculated using the LaFarge equation for all patients. The agreement between measured and estimated Vo(2) was evaluated by the bias and limits of agreement in the 2 age groups. Regression analysis was used to analyze the influence of age on the agreement. RESULTS: A failure of agreement between measured and estimated Vo(2) was noted in both groups of children. As compared to the older group of patients, the agreement was significantly poorer in children younger than 3 years, with a significantly greater overestimation introduced by the LaFarge equation (11% +/- 21% vs 53% +/- 52%, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The LaFarge equation introduces significant error in the estimation of Vo(2) in ventilated patients with congenital heart disease of all ages, particularly in children younger than 3 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 | 0.031 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".