Multicentre prospective observational study exploring the predictive value of functional echocardiographic indices for early identification of preterm neonates at risk of developing chronic pulmonary hypertension secondary to chronic neonatal lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although chronic pulmonary hypertension (cPH) secondary to chronic neonatal lung disease is associated with increased mortality and respiratory and neurodevelopmental morbidities, late diagnosis (typically ≥36 weeks postmenstrual age, PMA) and the use of qualitative echocardiographic diagnostic criterion (flat interventricular septum in systole) remain significant limitations in clinical care. Our objective in this study is to evaluate the utility of relevant quantitative echocardiographic indices to identify cPH in preterm neonates, early in postnatal course and to develop a diagnostic test based on the best combination of markers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this ongoing international prospective multicentre observational diagnostic accuracy study, we aim to recruit 350 neonates born <27 weeks PMA and/or birth weight <1000 g and perform echocardiograms in the third week of age and at 32 weeks PMA (early diagnostic assessments, EDA) in addition to the standard diagnostic assessment (SDA) for cPH at 36 weeks PMA. Predefined echocardiographic markers under investigation will be measured at each EDA and examined to create a scoring system to identify neonates who subsequently meet the primary outcome of cPH/death at SDA. Diagnostic test characteristics will be defined for each EDA. Pulmonary artery acceleration time and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion are the primary markers of interest. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received by the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB) (#16-0111-E), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre REB (#228-2016), NHS Health Research Authority (IRAS 266498), University of Iowa Human Subjects Office/Institutional Review Board (201903736), Rotunda Hospital Research and Ethics Committee (REC-2019-008), and UBC Children's and Women's REB (H19-02738), and is under review at Boston Children's Hospital Institutional Review Board. Study results will be disseminated to participating families in lay format, presented to the scientific community at paediatric and critical care conferences and published in relevant peer-reviewed journals. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04402645.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".