Abstract 13735: Classic Pattern Dyssynchrony Score: A Predictor of Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with an improvement in survival in selected pediatric and congenital heart disease (CHD) patients. However, there is minimal data to guide the identification of CRT responders in these challenging subgroups, even though implant is more complex and entails a longer lifetime legacy of device-related complications. Hypothesis: Echocardiographic measures of dyssynchrony predict response to CRT in this patient population Methods: This single-center study included all CRT pediatric and/or CHD patients (implant date 2004-2018). Response to CRT was defined as change in systemic ventricle ejection fraction (SVEF) on an ordinal scale (worsened/no change/improved). Multiple established echo indices (conventional and strain-derived) were assessed prior to implant. In addition, a novel ‘CPD-Score’, using an automated assessment of the presence of each of the four Classic Pattern Dyssynchrony (CPD) criteria on strain imaging (septal flash, lateral stretch, early peak septal strain, late peak lateral strain), was created. (Figure) Results: Of 127 CRT recipients, 91 met inclusion criteria (age 11yr (IQR 3-22yr), baseline SVEF 36±15%). In 62 (68%), SVEF improved following CRT (15 (16%) no change, 14 (15%) deteriorated). The presence of a septal flash was the best conventional echo predictor of response (PPV 78%). Conventional, strict, CPD also had high PPV for CRT response (72%) but was identified in only 9 (10%) patients. ‘CPD-Score’ offered a more graded response and higher PPV. A score of ≥3 was observed in 21 patients with PPV 96% (CPD-Score≥2 in 48 patients, PPV 83%). On stepwise multivariate ordinal regression, CPD-Score was independently associated with response (p= 0.02). Conclusion: CRT in pediatric and CHD patients is associated with an improvement in SVEF for the majority of recipients. Those with multiple features of CPD (‘CPD-Score’) are most likely to have an improvement in EF following CRT.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".