Outcomes for patients with an aortopulmonary window, and the impact of associated cardiovascular lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An aortopulmonary window is a communication between the ascending aorta and pulmonary trunk in the presence of two separate arterial valves, and is often complicated by other associated defects. We sought to determine management and related outcomes in patients with this malformation. We identified those patients presenting between 1969 and 1999 from the databases held in our Departments of Cardiology, Pathology and Cardiovascular Surgery. We obtained data relating to issues concerning demography, clinical findings, imaging, management and outcome. The median age at presentation for the 42 patients identified, of whom 23 were female, was 62 days, with a range from birth to 6 years. Associated cardiac defects were present in 34 patients, including interruption of the aortic arch in 6 patients. The correct diagnosis was initially missed in 13 patients. Of the patients, six died without surgical repair, and 1 patient was lost-to-follow-up. Repair was performed in 35 patients, subsequent to repair of other defects in 4, in association with repair of other defects in 17, of whom 3 died, and as an isolated procedure in 14 patients, one of the latter being treated by transcatheter closure. Overall, there were 9 deaths, all in patients with complex associated defects, except 1 patient with a missed aortopulmonary window after repair of aortic coarctation. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival were 81% at 3 months until 11.5 years, and 69% up to 21 years. Only the presence of interrupted aortic arch was independently associated with increased time-related mortality, the hazard ratio being 5.87 (p = 0.009). The outcome for an isolated lesion is excellent. Mortality occurs mainly before repair, mostly with complex associated lesions, particularly interruption of the aortic arch.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".