Structural brain abnormalities in adolescents and young adults with congenital heart defect: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The primary objective of this systematic review is to define and quantify brain structural abnormalities present in adolescents and young adults with complex congenital heart defect (CHD). We also aim to evaluate the extent to which these structural abnormalities are associated with functional outcomes. METHOD: A search of studies examining brain structure by magnetic resonance imaging in adolescents and young adults with complex CHD was performed in Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the odds of brain abnormalities in young people with CHD. Results not included in the meta-analysis were collated using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-four studies were identified through the literature search. Among these, 14 original studies were included in the review. The odds of brain abnormalities in young people with CHD were 7.9 times higher (p<0.001) than in typically developing comparison individuals. Focal and multifocal lesions were the most common types of abnormality (odds ratio 22.5 [p<0.001]). Preliminary evidence from volumetric, cortical, and microstructural integrity measurements suggests that brain abnormalities are associated with poorer neurocognitive outcomes. INTERPRETATION: This review provides strong evidence that adolescents and young adults with CHD are at increased risk of presenting with structural brain abnormalities and highlights the contribution of advanced quantitative magnetic resonance imaging techniques to identify the subtle but frequent brain alterations in this population. However, more studies are needed to clarify how these abnormalities relate to function. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: There is a high prevalence of brain abnormalities in young people with congenital heart defect (CHD). Brain volumes, cortical measurements, and white matter microstructure are altered in young people with CHD. Brain abnormalities are associated with poorer function in young people with CHD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".