MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787683433 · doi:10.14740/cr651w

Successful Surgical Repair and Perioperative Management of 6-Month-Old With Total Anomalous Pulmonary Venous Return in a Developing Country: Considerations for the Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension

2018· article· en· W2787683433 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L. Gokanapudy, Kenneth E. Remy, Sathappan Karuppiah, Eneida V. Melgar Humala, Ibrahim Abdullah, Michael Ruppe, William S. Schechter, Robert E. Michler, Joseph D. Tobias

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativePulmonary hypertensionCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total anomalous pulmonary venous return (TAPVR) is a rare congenital cardiac defect, accounting for 1.5-3% of cases of congenital heart disease. With prenatal ultrasonography, the majority of these patients are diagnosed in utero with definitive surgery performed during the neonatal period. However, as prenatal screening may not be available in developing countries, patients may present in later infancy. We present successful surgical repair of a 6-month-old infant with TAPVR who presented for medical care at 5 months of age in Lima, Peru. The late presentation of such infants and the limited resources available for the treatment of elevated pulmonary vascular resistance may impact successful surgical correction of such defects. The perioperative care of such infants in developing countries is discussed and strategies for managing postoperative pulmonary hypertension is reviewed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207