MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 16940: Heart Transplant After Failed Single Ventricle Palliation in Young Infants Carries Excess Mortality Risk: A Multi-Institutional Study

2011· article· en· W2883490030 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie D. Everitt, Gerard Boyle, Kenneth B. Schechtman, Jie Zheng, Aditya K. Kaza, Emily A. Bullock, Anne I. Dipchand, David C. Naftel, James K. Kirklin, Charles E. Canter

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricleHypoplastic left heart syndromeExcess mortalityCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineMortality rateHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infant heart transplant (HT) recipients have the best long term survival of any age group, but small donor pool and high early mortality limit the therapeutic efficacy. We aimed to determine the relationship between pre-HT diagnosis and early HT outcome to identify infants most likely to benefit from HT. METHODS: The Pediatric Heart Transplant Study (PHTS) database was used to identify 739 infants s/p HT at age ≤6 mths between 1993-2008 divided into the following etiologic groups: cardiomyopathy (CM: 132, 18%); hypoplastic left heart syndrome without prior surgery (HLHS_WOS: 303, 41%); HLHS with surgery (HLHS_WS: 69, 9%); other congenital heart disease without surgery (CHD_WOS: 121, 16%; and other congenital heart disease with surgery (CHD_WS: 114, 15%). Severity of illness at HT, post HT survival, and era effects were compared among the 4 groups. RESULTS: The 1 yr survival for HLHS_WOS (79%) was similar to CHD_WOS (79%) and CHD_WS (82%) but worse than CM (89%). HLHS_WS had the highest mortality w 1 yr survival of 70%, p=0.03. Hazard function analysis showed the difference occurred within the 1st 6 mths after HT. Survival remained poor in the current surgical era for HLHS_WS, 71% (1993-1998) v 70% (1999-2008). Risk factors at HT associated w mortality included age <1 mth (OR 2.5; CI 1.3-4.7, p=0.01), ECMO (OR 3.7; CI 2-6.8, p<0.01), ventilator use (OR 1.8; CI 1-3.2, p=0.04), and HLHS_WS (OR 2.3; CI 1.3-4.1, p<0.01). After adjusting for illness severity, differences in mortality risk persisted across etiologic groups. HLHS_WS (HR 2.3, CI 1.3-4, P<0.01), CHD_WOS (HR 1.8, 1.1-3.1, P= 0.03), and HLHS_WOS (HR 1.7, 1.1-2.8, P=0.02) had significantly higher risk for mortality compared to CM. CONCLUSIONS: Infant HT recipients with different pre-HT diagnoses have strikingly different outcomes after HT that are unchanged over time and seem unrelated to clinical acuity at HT. CM infants have excellent survival, but HLHS_WS represent a high risk group for early mortality after HT.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→