Diagnostic evaluation of paediatric pulmonary hypertension in current clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current paediatric pulmonary hypertension (PH) diagnostic algorithms include some testing specifically for paediatrics, but it is unclear if this is used in clinical practice. We describe the current diagnostic workup of the TOPP (Tracking Outcomes and Practice in Paediatric Pulmonary hypertension) registry for suspected PH. We investigated 456 patients enrolled until February 2010. The majority had ECGs (94%), echocardiograms (96%) and/or chest radiographs (89%) performed and these were the noninvasive tests most frequently used for evaluation of suspected PH. No patient had all three tests considered normal, suggesting the potential for the combined use to rule out PH. For evaluation of complications associated with heart catheterisation (HC) we analysed a total of 908 HCs reported until February 2012. Of these, 554 were at diagnosis and 354 in follow-up. Complications were reported in 5.9% with five deaths considered related to HC, suggesting a higher rate of HC complications compared to adult studies. However, current recommendations support HC in paediatric PH. A proper application of the risk/benefit ratio for HC requires further data. Most children did not undergo the diagnostic workup currently recommended for adults, which highlights either incomplete awareness of current guidelines and/or challenges their appropriateness for children.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".