Indications for Heart Transplantation in Pediatric Heart Disease
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
BACKGROUND: Since the initial utilization of heart transplantation as therapy for end-stage pediatric heart disease, improvements have occurred in outcomes with heart transplantation and surgical therapies for congenital heart disease along with the application of medical therapies to pediatric heart failure that have improved outcomes in adults. These events justify a reevaluation of the indications for heart transplantation in congenital heart disease and other causes of pediatric heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A working group was commissioned to review accumulated experience with pediatric heart transplantation and its use in patients with unrepaired and/or previously repaired or palliated congenital heart disease (children and adults), in patients with pediatric cardiomyopathies, and in pediatric patients with prior heart transplantation. Evidence-based guidelines for the indications for heart transplantation or retransplantation for these conditions were developed. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation has led to the development and refinement of indications for heart transplantation for patients with congenital heart disease and pediatric cardiomyopathies in addition to indications for pediatric heart retransplantation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it