Uso Atual de Ressonância Magnética Cardíaca Pediátrica no Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data on the use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) on children in Brazil is lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to provide information on current pediatric CMR practices in Brazil. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent out to referring physicians around the country. It covered information on the respondents, their CMR practices, the clinical context of the patients, and barriers to CMR use among children. For statistical analysis, two-sided p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The survey received 142 replies. CMR was reported to be available to 79% of the respondents, of whom, 52% rarely or never use CMR. The most common indications were found to be cardiomyopathies (84%), status of post-tetralogy of Fallot repair (81%), and aortic arch malformations (53%). Exam complexity correlated with CMR-to-surgery ratio (Rho = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.32-0.62, p < 0.0001) and with the number of CMR exams (Rho = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.38-0.64, p < 0.0001). Further, a high CMR complexity score was associated with pediatric cardiologists conducting the exams (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.2-3.89, p < 0.01). The main barriers to a more frequent use of CMR were its high cost (65%), the need for sedation (60%), and an insufficient number of qualified professionals (55%). CONCLUSION: Pediatric CMR is not used frequently in Brazil. The presence of a pediatric cardiologist who can perform CMR exams is associated with CMR use on more complex patients. Training pediatric CMR specialists and educating referring providers are important steps toward a broader use of CMR in Brazil. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; 116(2):305-312).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".