MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045938214 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316943

Utility of 3D printed cardiac models in congenital heart disease: a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3045938214 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBC Children's Hospital
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEMedical literatureSystematic reviewInclusion (mineral)Heart diseaseMedical physicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional printing (3DP) is a novel technology with applications in healthcare, particularly for congenital heart disease (CHD). We sought to explore the spectrum of use of 3D printed CHD models (3D-CM) and identify knowledge gaps within the published body of literature to guide future research. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review targeting published literature on the use of 3D-CMs. The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from their inception until 19 July 2019. Inclusion criteria were primary research; studies reporting use of 3D-CMs; and human subjects. Exclusion criteria were studies where 3D-CMs were generated for proof of concept but not used; and studies focused on bioprinting or computational 3D-CMs. Studies were assessed for inclusion and data were extracted from eligible articles in duplicate. RESULTS: The search returned 648 results. Following assessment, 79 articles were included in the final qualitative synthesis. The majority (66%) of studies are case reports or series. 15% reported use of a control group. Three main areas of utilisation are for (1) surgical and interventional cardiology procedural planning (n=62), (2) simulation (n=25), and (3) education for medical personnel or patients and their families (n=17). Multiple studies used 3D-CMs for more than one of these areas. CONCLUSIONS: 3DP for CHD is a new technology with an evolving literature base. Most of the published literature are experiential reports as opposed to manuscripts on scientifically robust studies. Our study has identified gaps in the literature and addressed priority areas for future research.

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.281 · 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