MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3132429079 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-83690-3

Infants with congenital heart defects have reduced brain volumes

2021· article· en· W3132429079 on OpenAlexaff
Mikkel B. Skotting, Simon Fristed Eskildsen, Anne Sif Lund Ovesen, Vladimir Fonov, Steffen Ringgaard, Vibeke E. Hjortdal, Mette Høj Lauridsen

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with congenital heart defects (CHDs) have increased risk of cognitive disabilities for reasons not fully understood. Previous studies have indicated signs of disrupted fetal brain growth from mid-gestation measured with ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and infants with CHDs have decreased brain volumes at birth. We measured the total and regional brain volumes of infants with and without CHDs using MRI to investigate, if certain areas of the brain are at particular risk of disrupted growth. MRI brain volumetry analyses were performed on 20 infants; 10 with- (postmenstrual age 39-54 weeks, mean 44 weeks + 5 days) and 10 without CHDs (postmenstrual age 39-52 weeks, mean 43 weeks + 5 days). In six infants with- and eight infants without CHDs grey and white matter were also differentiated. Infants with CHDs had smaller brains (48 ml smaller; 95% CI, 6.1-90; p = 0.03), cerebrums (37.8 ml smaller; 95% CI, 0.8-74.8; p = 0.04), and cerebral grey matter (25.8 ml smaller; 95% CI, 3.5-48; p = 0.03) than infants without CHD. Brain volume differences observed within weeks after birth in children with CHDs confirm that the brain impact, which increase the risk of cognitive disabilities, may begin during pregnancy.

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)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→