Aggressive Surgical Management of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: Worth the Effort?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were (i) to evaluate infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) that do not undergo repair, (ii) to identify nonrepair rate by institution, and (iii) to compare institutional outcomes based on nonrepair rate. BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of infants with CDH go unrepaired and the threshold to offer surgical repair is variable. METHODS: Data were abstracted from a multicenter, prospectively collected database. Standard clinical variables, including repair (or nonrepair), and outcome were analyzed. Institutions were grouped based on volume and rate of nonrepair. Preoperative mortality predictors were identified using logistic regression, expected mortality for each center was calculated, and observed /expected (O/E) ratios were computed for center groups and compared by Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA. RESULTS: A total of 3965 infants with CDH were identified and 691 infants (17.5%) were not repaired. Nonrepaired patients had lower Apgar scores (P < 0.05) and increased incidence of anomalies (P < 0.0001). Low-volume centers ("Lo", n=44 total, < 10 CDH pts/yr) and high-volume centers ("Hi", n = 21) had median nonrepair rates of 19.8% (range 0%-66.7%) and 16.7% (5.1%-38.5%), respectively. High-volume centers were further dichotomized by rate of nonrepair (HiLo = 5.1-16.7% and HiHi = 17.6-38.5%), leaving 3 groups: HiLo, HiHi, and Lo. Predictors of mortality were lower birth weight, lower Apgar scores, prenatal diagnosis, and presence of congenital anomalies. O/E ratios for mortality in the HiLo, HiHi, and Lo groups were 0.81, 0.94, and 1.21, respectively (P < 0.0001). For every 100 CDH patients, HiLo centers have 2.73 (2.4-3.1, 95% confidence interval) survivors beyond expectation. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between repaired and nonrepaired CDH infants and significant center variation in rate of nonrepair exists. Aggressive surgical management, leading to a low rate of nonrepair, is associated with improved risk-adjusted mortality.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".