Risk for PHACE Syndrome in Infants With Large Facial Hemangiomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of posterior fossae of the brain, arterial anomalies, cardiac anomalies, and eye anomalies (PHACE) in infants with large facial hemangiomas. The extracutaneous manifestations of PHACE may be associated with significant morbidity, and the prevalence of PHACE in patients with facial hemangiomas has not previously been reported. METHODS: A multicenter prospective study was conducted with 108 infants who had large facial hemangiomas and were systematically evaluated for manifestations of PHACE. The prevalence of PHACE and its extracutaneous manifestations in this cohort was calculated. The relationship between hemangioma distribution and the manifestations of PHACE was analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-three (31%) of 108 had PHACE. Thirty of the 33 patients with PHACE had >1 extracutaneous finding. The risk for PHACE syndrome was higher in infants with larger hemangiomas and in those with hemangiomas that encompassed >1 facial segment. The most common extracutaneous anomalies observed in infants with PHACE were of the arteries of the cerebrovasculature (91%) and cardiac anomalies (67%). Upper face (frontotemporal and frontonasal) hemangiomas were commonly observed in infants with PHACE; isolated maxillary hemangiomas were rarely associated with PHACE. CONCLUSIONS: In infants with large facial hemangiomas, one-third have extracutaneous manifestations consistent with the diagnosis of PHACE syndrome, most commonly cerebrovascular and cardiovascular anomalies. The high prevalence of arterial anomalies in this cohort has implications for clinical management and future research regarding the pathophysiology of PHACE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".