Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Pediatric Cardiology Association Position Statement on Pulse Oximetry Screening in Newborns to Enhance Detection of Critical Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congenital heart disease is the most common congenital malformation and approximately 3 in 1000 newborns have critical congenital heart disease (CCHD). Timely diagnosis affects morbidity, mortality, and disability, and newborn pulse oximetry screening has been studied to enhance detection of CCHD. In this position statement we present an evaluation of the literature for pulse oximetry screening. Current detection strategies including prenatal ultrasound examination and newborn physical examination are limited by low diagnostic sensitivity. Pulse oximetry screening is safe, noninvasive, easy to perform, and widely available with a high specificity (99.9%) and moderately high sensitivity (76.5%). When an abnormal saturation is obtained, the likelihood of having CCHD is 5.5 times greater than when a normal result is obtained. The use of pulse oximetry combined with current strategies has shown sensitivities of up to 92% for detecting CCHD. False positive results can be minimized by screening after 24 hours, and testing the right hand and either foot might further increase sensitivity. Newborns with abnormal screening results should undergo a comprehensive assessment and echocardiography performed if a cardiac cause cannot be excluded. Screening has been studied to be cost neutral to cost effective. We recommend that pulse oximetry screening should be routinely performed in all healthy newborns to enhance the detection of CCHD in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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".