Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The focus of cardiac catheterization has changed from principally a diagnostic procedure to providing therapeutic options at various stages of childhood and adult congenital heart disease. The paediatric cardiac catheterization laboratory functions as a 'satellite' operating room. Combined ('hybrid') procedures with interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons present additional challenges for anaesthesia. The increased patient and procedure complexity represents higher risk for anaesthesia-related adverse events. RECENT FINDINGS: This review concentrates on the recent efforts to determine these patient and procedure-related risks. Multicentre registries have been developed, generating information regarding adverse events and patient outcomes. Standardized adverse events ratios allow comparisons between institutions and providers. Models to identify high-risk groups have been developed. SUMMARY: Advances in paediatric cardiac catheterization have created significant challenges for delivering anaesthesia in this environment. Anaesthetists need to have an integral role in the cardiac catheterization team, understanding and anticipating the risks for patients and leading the organization of workflow. Techniques used to improve systems in the operating room have been introduced to the cardiac catheterization laboratory to promote patient safety.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".