MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982249222 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.1027

P4645Prevalence of interatrial communications in 7,000 newborns from a large, prospective population study

2019· article· en· W2982249222 on OpenAlexaff
E Blixenkrone-Moeller, Sofie Dannesbo, Christian Pihl, Anne‐Sophie Sillesen, O Voegg, Anna Axelsson Raja, Steven D. Colan, Luc Mertens, Niels Vejlstrup, Henning Bundgaard, Kasper Iversen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatent foramen ovaleForamen ovale (heart)Interatrial septumCardiologyProspective cohort studyAtrial septumInternal medicinePopulationForamen secundumRadiologyAtrial fibrillationLeft atrium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The prevalence of any interatrial communication (IAC) (patent foramen ovale (PFO) or atrial septal defect (ASD)) in newborns has previously been reported to be between 24% and 92%. However, previous studies were relatively small, and no universal classification of IACs exists. We proposed a new echocardiographic diagnostic algorithm developed in collaboration with a group of international experts to classify IACs based on echocardiographic findings on subxiphoid transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) images of the atrial septum in unselected newborns. Purpose To determine the prevalence of IACs (PFO and ASD) in newborns based on the new diagnostic algorithm. Method Echocardiograms of newborns (age 0–30 days) consecutively included in a large, prospective population study (n=25,000) were analyzed using the new algorithm. The algorithm classifies IACs into PFO and ASD based on transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) findings including size and number of the communication(s) as well as the morphology and structure of the atrial septum, taking the normal fetal development into consideration. An IAC was classified as a PFO when either there was only one communication located in the upper 2/3 of the atrial septum with a visible communication having a diameter of ≤3.4 mm or a channel-like structure; or there was no visible communication on 2D but acceleration of colour Doppler flow crossing the septum was documented. An IAC was classified as an ASD if the diameter of a visible communication was >3.4 mm, or the communication was located in the lower 1/3 part of the atrial septum, or more than one communication was present. No visible communication on 2D and no flow acceleration despite possible colour Doppler flow crossing the atrial septum was classified as an absence of IAC. Preliminary results As of 3 February 2019, 9,028 echocardiograms have been analyzed. A total of 2,026 (22.4%) were excluded due to poor image quality of the atrial septum. Of the 7,002 included echocardiograms, an IAC was detected on the TTE images in 85.9% of the newborns (median age 12 days [IQR 8; 15], 47.9% females). According to the algorithm 78.7% of the newborns were classified as having a PFO (see Table 1) whereas 7.2% were classified as having an ASD. Table 1. Prevalence of interatrial communications in newborns aged 0–30 days Type of interatrial communication: Prevalence (n=7,002): Patent foramen ovale 78.7% Atrial septal defect 7.2% No interatrial communication 14.1% Conclusion An IAC was present in the vast majority of newborns aged 0–30 days. PFOs were 11 times more frequent than ASDs. Acknowledgement/Funding Danish Heart Association, Danish Children's Heart Foundation, Candy's Found., Toyota Found., Herlev-Gentofte Hospital Research Found., Gangsted Found.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207