MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090724701 · doi:10.1515/jpm.2004.130

Noncompaction of the left ventricular myocardium diagnosed in pregnant woman and neonate

2004· article· en· W2090724701 on OpenAlexaff
K Kitao, Noriyuki Ohara, Toru Funakoshi, Toshitake Moriyama, Takeshi Maruo, Masayuki Yamane, Naoki Yokoyama, Takeshi Kondo, Sohei Kitazawa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Perinatal Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestationVentricleCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failureFetal echocardiographyFetusAutopsyCardiomyopathyPregnancyVentricular functionPrenatal diagnosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noncompaction of the left ventricular myocardium (NCLV) is an uncommon congenital cardiomyopathy with poor prognosis. We describe a case of NCLV that developed in a pregnant woman and her neonate. A nulliparous woman was referred at 24 weeks' gestation due to dyspnea and fetal hydrops. Maternal echocardiography demonstrated NCLV with characteristic findings of prominent and excessive ventricular trabeculations and deep intertrabecular recesses in the left ventricle. An M-mode echocardiography suggested depressed left ventricular systolic function. A fetal echocardiography at 24 weeks' gestation demonstrated cardiomegaly, but morphologic findings were not definitive for NCLV. An emergency cesarean section was performed due to maternal heart failure. A neonatal echocardiography diagnosed NCLV with depressed left ventricular systolic function. The neonate died of cardiac failure on the second day of life. Autopsy confirmed the echocardiographic findings. Since patients with NCLV may develop heart failure, multidisciplinary management is mandatory. In addition, awareness of familial occurrence of NCLV should be kept in mind for early diagnosis in the fetus and neonate.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Perinatal MedicineSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207