MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199866074 · doi:10.3389/fped.2021.736242

The Use of Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography in Pediatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Narrative Analysis

2021· review· en· W3199866074 on OpenAlex
Annie Le‐Nguyen, Maeve O’Neill Trudeau, Philippe Dodin, Mark R. Keezer, Christophe Fauré, Nelson Piché

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic aneurysm repair treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIndocyanine greenPerioperativeMEDLINESystematic reviewCINAHLChecklistPsycINFORadiologyMedical physicsSurgeryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) is a validated non-invasive imaging technique used to assess tissue vascularization and guide intraoperative decisions in many surgical fields including plastic surgery, neurosurgery, and general surgery. While this technology is well-established in adult surgery, it remains sparsely used in pediatric surgery. Our aim was to systematically review and provide an overview of all available evidence on the perioperative use of indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in pediatric surgical patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review with narrative synthesis in conformity with the PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, Medline, All EBM Reviews, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL COMPLETE databases to identify articles describing the perioperative use of ICG-FA in pediatric patients. Two independent authors screened all included articles for eligibility and inclusion criteria. We extracted data on study design, demographics, surgical indications, indocyanine green dose, and perioperative outcomes. We developed a risk of bias assessment tool to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies. Results: Of 1,031 articles retrieved, a total of 64 articles published between 2003 and 2020 were included reporting on 664 pediatric patients. Most articles were case reports and case series ( n = 36; 56%). No adverse events related to ICG-FA were reported in the included articles. Risk of bias was high. We did not conduct a meta-analysis given the heterogeneous nature of the populations, interventions, and outcome measures. A narrative synthesis is presented. Conclusion: Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography is a safe imaging technology and its use is increasing rapidly in pediatric surgical specialties. However, the quality of evidence supporting this trend currently appears low. Case-control and randomized trials are needed to determine the adequate pediatric dose and to confirm the potential benefits of ICG-FA in pediatric surgical patients. Systematic Review Registration: This study was registered on Prospero a priori, identifier: CRD42020151981.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.013
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.259 · 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