MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531448578 · doi:10.1136/openhrt-2015-000328

Predictors of poor outcome among children with heterotaxy syndrome: a retrospective review

2016· review· en· W2531448578 on OpenAlexaff
Eiméar McGovern, Eoin Kelleher, James E. Potts, John O’Brien, Kevin Walsh, Lars Nölke, Colin J. McMahon

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Heart · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeterotaxyMedicineOutcome (game theory)Retrospective cohort studyPediatricsInternal medicineHeart diseaseEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine predictors of poor outcome in patients with heterotaxy syndrome. METHODS: A retrospective review of children with heterotaxy syndrome, in a single tertiary paediatric cardiology centre, was conducted between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 2014 to determine predictors of poor outcome. Poor outcome was defined as death, cardiac transplantation or New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV. RESULTS: There were 35 patients diagnosed with heterotaxy syndrome, 17 of whom were diagnosed antenatally. 22 patients had right atrial isomerism and 13 had left atrial isomerism. The median age of postnatal diagnosis was 2.5 days old (1 day to 19 months). 12 patients had a poor outcome; 6 patients died, 1 underwent cardiac transplantation and 5 had an NYHA functional class of >III. 5 patients had a biventricular repair and the remaining 30 had a univentricular repair. Type of atrial isomerism, univentricular or biventricular anatomy, severity of atrioventricular valve regurgitation or ventricular dysfunction, obstructed pulmonary venous return, occurrence of arrhythmia and presence of pulmonary atresia did not predict poor outcome. Fetal diagnosis also did not confer a survival advantage. The median duration of follow-up in this cohort was 65 months (2 days to 16.8 years). CONCLUSIONS: Survival for patients with heterotaxy syndrome was 83% over a median follow-up of 65 months. 34% of patients had a poor outcome. None of the variables studied were predictive of death, transplantation or NYHA classification III or IV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen HeartSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207