MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905886584 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000000603

Late deaths after Fontan procedure

2018· review· en· W2905886584 on OpenAlexaff
Shuhua Luo, Osami Honjo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFontan procedureIntensive care medicineTransplantationPsychological interventionVentricleCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: It has been more than 4 decades since the development of Fontan operation. With the contemporary surgical strategies to treat the patients with a single ventricle physiology, the medium-term survival of the patients following Fontan operation is excellent. Nonetheless, the Fontan circulation with a pumpless pulmonary circulation has fundamental physiologic limitations, which are associated with late Fontan failure and deaths. There has been an exponential growth of adolescence and adults living with a Fontan circulation, which poses significant challenges in future. RECENT FINDINGS: In this review, we discuss challenges and potential opportunities to treat the failing Fontan circulation. The specific topics include medical therapy, imaging, and therapeutic interventions for lymphatic abnormalities, transplantation, and mechanical support. The article also summarizes quality of life among the patients with the Fontan circulation. SUMMARY: Surgical techniques, developing novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools, and increasing our understanding of the failing Fontan physiology is essential to improve the overall long-term outcome of this entity.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207