Brain Injury in Neonates with Complex Congenital Heart Disease: What Is the Predictive Value of MRI in the Fetal Period?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Brain injury in neonates with congenital heart disease is an important predictor of adverse neurodevelopmental outcome. Impaired brain development in congenital heart disease may have a prenatal origin, but the sensitivity and specificity of fetal brain MR imaging for predicting neonatal brain lesions are currently unknown. We sought to determine the value of conventional fetal MR imaging for predicting abnormal findings on neonatal preoperative MR imaging in neonates with complex congenital heart disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging studies were performed in 103 fetuses with confirmed congenital heart disease (mean gestational age, 31.57 ± 3.86 weeks) and were repeated postnatally before cardiac surgery (mean age, 6.8 ± 12.2 days). Each MR imaging study was read by a pediatric neuroradiologist. RESULTS: Brain abnormalities were detected in 17/103 (16%) fetuses by fetal MR imaging and in 33/103 (32%) neonates by neonatal MR imaging. Only 9/33 studies with abnormal neonatal findings were preceded by abnormal findings on fetal MR imaging. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional fetal brain MR imaging for predicting neonatal brain abnormalities were 27% and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Brain abnormalities detected by in utero MR imaging in fetuses with congenital heart disease are associated with higher risk of postnatal preoperative brain injury. However, a substantial proportion of anomalies on postnatal MR imaging were not present on fetal MR imaging; this result is likely due to the limitations of conventional fetal MR imaging and the emergence of new lesions that occurred after the fetal studies. Postnatal brain MR imaging studies are needed to confirm the presence of injury before open heart surgery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".