Neurodevelopmental evaluation for school-age children with congenital heart disease: recommendations from the cardiac neurodevelopmental outcome collaborative
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2012, the American Heart Association and the American Academy of Paediatrics released a scientific statement with guidelines for the evaluation and management of the neurodevelopmental needs of children with CHD. Decades of outcome research now highlight a range of cognitive, learning, motor, and psychosocial vulnerabilities affecting individuals with CHD across the lifespan. The number of institutions with Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Programmes and services for CHD is growing worldwide. This manuscript provides an expanded set of neurodevelopmental evaluation strategies and considerations for professionals working with school-age children with CHD. Recommendations begin with the referral process and access to the evaluation, the importance of considering medical risk factors (e.g., genetic disorders, neuroimaging), and the initial clinical interview with the family. The neurodevelopmental evaluation should take into account both family and patient factors, including the child/family's primary language, country of origin, and other cultural factors, as well as critical stages in development that place the child at higher risk. Domains of assessment are reviewed with emphasis on target areas in need of evaluation based on current outcome research with CHD. Finally, current recommendations are made for assessment batteries using a brief core battery and an extended comprehensive clinical battery. Consistent use of a recommended assessment battery will increase opportunities for research collaborations, and ultimately help improve the quality of care for families and children with CHD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it