6: Towards Pulse Oximetry Screening in Ontario, Canada: What is the Burden of Missed Critical Congenital Heart Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulse oximetry screening (POS) for critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) in newborns is gaining acceptance in clinical practice. The geographical setting of Ontario in relation to its vast yet sparsely populated regions presents unique challenges with regards to POS implementation. Evaluate the incidence of missed CCHD cases and the trends over time in Ontario, Canada over 10 years as a first step towards consideration of POS. Data from multiple, linked, administrative health and demographic datasets were used to determine the annual incidence of total and missed cases of CCHD in Ontario from 2002–11, along with baseline demographics including designated level of birth hospital. Patients discharged home prior to diagnosis of CCHD were considered to have “missed CCHD” and were further subcategorized into “definitely missed” [1 of 9 pre-determined severest CCHDs and re-admission within 30 days or death] and “possibly missed” [1 of 6 less severe CCHDs requiring readmission in first year of life resulting in either cardiac intervention or death]. Annual trends in incidence of missed CCHD were evaluated during study period. Of 1,343,850 total births in Ontario during the study period, 2787 (0.21%) had a diagnosis of CCHD and 438 (15.7%) cases of CCHD were missed. Of these 438 patients, 66 were definitely and 372 were possibly missed CCHD cases and the proportion delivered in hospitals without neonatal intensive care capability was 77.3% and 82.5%, respectively. There was no discernible change in the incidence of missed CCHD cases over the ten year period. Despite a low overall incidence of CCHD, a significant proportion of CCHD cases were not diagnosed prior to discharge home, and the vast majority were delivered in non-tertiary hospitals. Further research is required to evaluate the logistical and economic impact of POS implementation in Ontario in light of these data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".