Outcomes for children with cardiomyopathy awaiting transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with outcomes after listing for transplantation in children with cardiomyopathies. BACKGROUND: Childhood cardiomyopathies form a heterogeneous group of diseases, and in many, the prognosis is poor, irrespective of the etiology. When profound heart failure develops, cardiac transplantation can be the only viable option for survival. METHODS: We included all children with cardiomyopathy listed for transplantation between 12/89 and 4/98 in this historical cohort study. RESULTS: We listed 31 patients, 15 male and 16 female, 27 with dilated and 4 with restrictive cardiomyopathy, for transplantation. The median age at listing was 5.7 years, with a range from fetal life to 17.8 years. Transplantation was achieved in 23 (74%), with a median interval from listing of 54 days, and a range from zero to 11.4 years. Of the patients, 14 were transplanted within 30 days of listing. Five patients (16%) died before transplantation. Within the Canadian algorithm, one of these was in the third state, and four in the fourth state. One patient was removed from the list after 12 days, having recovered from myocarditis, and two remain waiting transplantation after intervals of 121 and 476 days, respectively. Patients who died were more likely to be female (5/5 vs. 11/26; p=0.04) and to have been in the third or fourth states at listing (5/5 vs. 15/26; p=0.04). The use of mechanical ventricular assistance, in 10 patients, was not a predictor of an adverse outcome. While not statistically significant, survival to transplantation was associated with treatment using inhibitors of angiotensin converting enzyme, less mitral regurgitation, a higher mean ejection fraction and cardiac index, and lower right ventricular systolic pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Children with cardiomyopathy awaiting transplantation have a mortality of 16% related to their clinical state at the time of listing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".