MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14706: Cardiac Phenotype in Children Undergoing Screening for Familial Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Is it Time to Change Screening Guidelines?

2015· article· en· W2887688289 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Zahavich, Jacob Mathew, Judith Wilson, Kristen M. George, Sarah Bowdin, Seema Mital

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertrophic cardiomyopathyPhenotypeCardiomyopathyCardiologyInternal medicineClinical phenotypePediatricsHeart failureGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Current hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) screening guidelines recommend that clinical and/or genetic screening of children with family history of HCM be initiated from age 10 years (European Society of Cardiology 2014) or 12 years (American Heart Association 2011) onward and earlier only in the presence of malignant family history, presence of symptoms and/or participation in competitive sports. We assessed the proportion of asymptomatic children undergoing HCM screening that developed HCM phenotype or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) prior to age 12 years. Methods: This was a single centre retrospective study of HCM kindreds referred for screening to our cardiomyopathy clinic. Index cases with HCM, and cases with secondary cardiomyopathy (metabolic, neuromuscular, syndromic) were excluded. Genotype and phenotype status at initial screening and last follow-up were analyzed. MACE was defined as occurrence of death, transplant, resuscitated cardiac arrest, implantation of ICD or myectomy. Results: From 2005-2014, 427 children were referred for cardiac screening secondary to a family history of HCM. Of these, 379 (88.8%) had first-degree relatives with HCM and 146 (34.1%) had a family history of sudden cardiac death. The median age at first screening was 7.4 years (range 1 day-17 years), and median follow-up duration was 3 years. 45% (13/29 tested) phenotype-positive children, and 53% (32/60 tested) phenotype-negative children has positive genetic testing. 27/427 (6.3%) were phenotype-positive (maximal LV wall thickness Z-score >2.0) at initial screening and an additional 13 (3%) became phenotype-positive during follow-up. The median age at positive phenotypic diagnosis of HCM was 8 years (range 5 days-17 years) with 24 children being <12 years old (5.6%). 11/427 (2.6%) suffered a MACE during follow-up. Median age at MACE occurrence was 10.9 years (range 6-15 years) with 6 children being <12 years old at occurrence of MACE (1.4%). Conclusion: Overall, more than 5% children being screened for HCM were phenotype-positive and 1.4% suffered a MACE before 12 years of age. These data suggest the importance of revising existing guidelines to recommend clinical and/or genetic screening of HCM of all family members independent of age.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies→French-language works237,207→