[Investigation of fetal arrhythmias by simultaneous recording of ascending aortic and superior vena caval blood flow].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a period of 18 consecutive months, all the foetus referred to our Foetal Cardiology Unit for investigation of arrhythmia were systematically assessed by M mode echocardiography and simultaneous recording of blood flow in the superior vena cava and the aorta (SVC/Ao). This study was undertaken to compare the performance of these two approaches. The foetus were classified into three groups according to the arrhythmia diagnosed: Group 1: irregular arrhythmias, Group 2: bradycardias, Group 3: tachycardias. A surface ECG was recorded in all the neonates in whom the arrhythmias persisted. In Group 1, including 50 cases of extrasystoles (49 atrial and 1 ventricular), M mode echo and the Doppler provided the diagnosis in 42 and 47 cases respectively. This difference was not statistically significant. Group 2 comprised four cases of bradycardia (2 blocked atrial bigeminy, 2 complete atrioventricular blocks); the two methods provided the diagnosis in all 4 cases. Group 3 comprised 11 cases including 7 supraventricular tachycardias (SVT), 2 flutter, 1 chaotic atrial rhythm and 1 ectopic junctional rhythm. Complete analysis of these arrhythmias was possible by M mode in 4 cases and by Doppler in all cases. This difference was significant. The distribution of the 7 cases of SVT with respect to the duration of the ventriculoatrial interval was possible by M mode in 2 cases and in all cases by Doppler. This was a decisive factor in the choice of antiarrhythmic therapy. The authors conclude that Doppler and M mode are two echocardiographic approaches which are equally effective in the investigation of foetal atrial extrasystoles and probably of sustained foetal bradycardia. However, Doppler recording of SVC/Ao gives a more detailed and precise diagnosis of more complex foetal arrhythmias.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".