MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011246226 · doi:10.1017/s1047951120000438

Challenges and lessons learned from the Pediatric Heart Network Normal Echocardiogram Database study

2020· article· en· W3011246226 on OpenAlexaff
Dongngan T. Truong, Leo Lopez, Peter C. Frommelt, Jessica Stelter, Brenda Ni, Meryl S. Cohen, Ashwin Prakash, Steven D. Colan, Christopher F. Spurney, Jonathan H. Soslow, Gail D. Pearson, Joseph Mahgerefteh, Ritu Sachdeva, Ricardo H. Pignatelli, Felicia Trachtenberg, Mario Stylianou, Karen Altmann, Kathleen A. Rathge, Joseph Camarda, Shahryar M. Chowdhury, Andréea Dragulescu, Michele A. Frommelt, Olukayode Garuba, Brian D. Soriano, Shubhika Srivastava, Poonam P. Thankavel, Mary E. van der Velde, L. LuAnn Minich

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology in the Young · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsAdjudicationMedicineInstitutional review boardProtocol (science)Descriptive statisticsData collectionDatabaseComputer scienceSurgeryPathologyStatisticsAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Heart Network Normal Echocardiogram Database Study had unanticipated challenges. We sought to describe these challenges and lessons learned to improve the design of future studies. METHODS: Challenges were divided into three categories: enrolment, echocardiographic imaging, and protocol violations. Memoranda, Core Lab reports, and adjudication logs were reviewed. A centre-level questionnaire provided information regarding local processes for data collection. Descriptive statistics were used, and chi-square tests determined differences in imaging quality. RESULTS: For the 19 participating centres, challenges with enrolment included variations in Institutional Review Board definitions of "retrospective" eligibility, overestimation of non-White participants, centre categorisation of Hispanic participants that differed from National Institutes of Health definitions, and exclusion of potential participants due to missing demographic data. Institutional Review Board amendments resolved many of these challenges. There was an unanticipated burden imposed on centres due to high numbers of echocardiograms that were reviewed but failed to meet submission criteria. Additionally, image transfer software malfunctions delayed Core Lab image review and feedback. Between the early and late study periods, the proportion of unacceptable echocardiograms submitted to the Core Lab decreased (14 versus 7%, p < 0.01). Most protocol violations were from eligibility violations and inadvertent protected health information disclosure (overall 2.5%). Adjudication committee reviews led to protocol changes. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous challenges encountered during the Normal Echocardiogram Database Study prolonged study enrolment. The retrospective design and flaws in image transfer software were key impediments to study completion and should be considered when designing future studies collecting echocardiographic images as a primary outcome.

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)0.617
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.648
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6170.648
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0110.012
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology in the YoungSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207