MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411565195 · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1584279

Right Ventricular Myocardial Ischemia with Arrhythmia in an Asphyxiated Newborn

2016· article· en· W2411565195 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne Lee Solevåg, Georg M. Schmölzer, Po‐Yin Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHelse Sør-Øst RHFUniversity of AlbertaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyMyocarditisInternal medicineCardiogenic shockMyocardial infarctionAsphyxiaAutopsyThrombusPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Infant and neonatal myocardial infarction (MI) has been described in association with congenital heart disease, coronary artery abnormalities, myocarditis, and tumors. MI in the perinatal period in a structurally normal heart and with ventricular arrhythmia as a presenting feature has not been thoroughly described. Published case reports describe treatment methods extrapolated from adult MI. However, due to the rare occurrence, the most appropriate acute treatment for both MI and ventricular arrhythmia in newborn infants remains unknown. Case A male term infant with perinatal asphyxia and need for extensive cardiopulmonary resuscitation at birth had ventricular tachyarrhythmia and ST-elevations on electrocardiogram. Four hours after birth, he died from cardiogenic failure. A thrombus at the right coronary artery was found on autopsy. Conclusion MI in the perinatal period in a structurally normal heart is very rare and mortality is high. Although acute treatments extrapolated from adult MI has been described to result in favorable outcomes in newborn infants, guidelines are lacking on how to manage acute MI and associated ventricular arrhythmia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Perinatology ReportsSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207