MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907797864 · doi:10.1111/petr.13349

The first successful pediatric heart transplant and results from the earliest era

2019· article· en· W2907797864 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Kirk, Ryan J. Butts, Anne I. Dipchand

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsHeart transplantsRetrospective cohort studyHeart transplantationSurgeryTransplantationHeart diseaseGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The first pediatric heart transplant died 5 hours after transplant and the case was published by Kantrowitz. There is no report of the first successful case in the medical literature, nor indeed the outcome of children transplanted prior to 1982. However, we recently discovered that children from this period were entered retrospectively into the ISHLT Registry when it began and they form the basis of this report. METHODS: A retrospective review of the ISHLT Thoracic Registry was undertaken for pediatric heart transplants prior to 1982. Demographic and descriptive data, and patient and graft survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty children (24 male) had a median age of 13 years (IQR 12-16) at the time of primary transplant. The underlying cardiac diagnosis was cardiomyopathy (18), congenital heart disease (7), not reported (5). The median follow-up was 2.63 years (IQR 0.1-7.2). Twenty-two patients are known to have died, and eight underwent retransplantation. Median patient survival was 3.5 years. The first patient to survive for more than one year was transplanted in 1968 and survived 6 years. CONCLUSION: The definition of a successful transplant is debatable; however, the first child reported to the registry to survive beyond one year was transplanted in 1968. Survival for these early patients was considerably less than the subsequent eras and retransplantation more common; however, the experience in managing these children laid the foundation for the future.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207