Outcomes of fetal listed patients awaiting heart transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HTx in neonates is mainstay therapy for those with severe cardiomyopathies and congenital heart disease. Fetal listing for HTx has been proposed as a way to increase the potential window for a donor with outcomes predicted to be similar to the neonatal population. Data from the PHTS, a prospective multicenter study, were used to examine the outcomes of fetuses listed between 1993 and 2009. Four thousand three hundred and sixty-five children were listed for HTx during this period. Fetuses comprised 1% and neonates 19.8% of listed patients. In those patients listed as fetus and transplanted, the median wait time from listing to HTx was 55 days (range 4-255), with a median of 25 days (range 0-233) after birth. By six months post-listing, a higher proportion of fetal listed patients had undergone HTx with a lower waitlist mortality when compared with neonate. There was no significant difference in survival following HTx between the two group (p = 0.4). While the results of this study may be less applicable to current practice due to changes in referrals for fetal listing, they do indicate that fetal listing can be a reasonable option. These results are of particular interest at the present time given the ongoing public discourse on the proposed elimination of fetal listing within UNOS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".