Impact of prenatal diagnosis on the management and early outcome of critical duct-dependent cardiac lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the preoperative management and outcome of neonates with duct-dependent critical CHD with fetal versus postnatal diagnosis. METHODS: Patients referred with CHD to our centre from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010 were enrolled prospectively. Live births with a critical form of CHD, a gestational age ⩾36 weeks and a weight ⩾2 kg at birth, and the intention-to-treat were included in this sub-study. Excluded were neonates with lethal non-cardiac and/or genetic anomalies. RESULTS: In total, 129, 63 fetal and 66 postnatal, cases met the study inclusion criteria. All had received appropriate antenatal care, including a routine fetal anatomy scan. Both cohorts were comparable in weight, gestational age, and APGAR scores at birth. Unlike the postnatal cases, there were no deaths (0/63 versus 5/66; p=0.06) and no cardiac arrests (0/63 versus 9/63; p=0.003) before surgery or catheter intervention in those cases with a prenatal diagnosis of critical CHD. Moreover, newborns with fetal diagnoses were admitted earlier (median 0 (range 0-3) versus 2 (0-25) days; p<0.001) and were less likely to require preoperative ventilation (19/63 versus 31/61, p=0.03) and vasoactive medication (4/63 versus 15/61, p=0.006) than the postnatal cases. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal diagnosis of critical CHD in this study was associated with significantly shorter time intervals from birth to neonatal admission and the absence of life-threatening or fatal preoperative cardiac events. Increased efforts should be made to improve rates of prenatal diagnosis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".