Abstract 10895: The Association of Growth Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Children With Dilated Cardiomyopathy: A Report From the Pediatric Cardiomyopathy Registry Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although malnourishment is associated with mortality in adult dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), a paradox exists where obesity is protective. We aim to look at the role of these risk factors in pediatric DCM. Hypothesis: We hypothesize malnourishment (MN) and obesity are risk factors for death or heart transplantation. Methods: The NHLBI- funded Pediatric Cardiomyopathy Registry (PCMR) database was used for this analysis of patients (age < 18 years) with idiopathic or familial DCM and myocarditis. Patients were categorized by anthropological measurements: MN (defined as BMI <5% for ≥2years or weight for length <5% for <2 years), obese (BMI> 95% for ages ≥2years or weight for length >95% for <2 years), and normal. Results: Of 904 DCM patients, 23.7% (214) were MN, 13.3% (120) were obese, and 63.1% (570) were normal (Table). Obese patients were significantly older (p<0.001) and more likely to have a family history of DCM (both p<0.05). MN were more likely to have congestive heart failure, increased cardiac dimensions, and higher ventricular mass (p<0.01). In a Kaplan Meier analysis, there was a difference in time to death or transplant by groups (Figure, p=0.0498). Adjusting for age and myocarditis, MN was associated with increased risk of death (HR: 1.857, 95%CI: 1.159-2.977, p=<0.001), but obesity was not (HR: 1.362, 95%CI: 0.722, 2.566). Competing outcome analysis showed an increased risk of death for MN (p=0.026) but no difference between groups in transplant rate (p=0.159). Conclusion: Malnourishment is significantly associated with poor clinical outcomes. Unlike adult DCM where obesity is protective, obesity is not associated with improved survival in pediatric DCM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".