MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 17386: The Survival Impact of Genetic and Chromosomal Aberrations, Non-Cardiac Congenital Defects and Acquired Baseline Morbidity on Neonates with Congenital Heart Disease. How Does the “Perfect” Child Fare?

2011· article· en· W34888682 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Hickey, Yaroslavna Nosikova, Christopher A. Caldarone, Andrew N. Redington, Glen S. Van Arsdell

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart diseaseBaseline (sea)CardiologyDiseasePediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Genetic aberrations, congenital non-cardiac defects and baseline acquired co-morbidities greatly hamper counseling, prognostication and decision-management for neonates with congenital heart defects. We aimed to define the relative risks of these factors. Methods Over 10 years, we have admitted 1618 neonates <30 days with congenital heart defects. For all 1618, consults throughout follow-up were reviewed including genetic consults (318), FISH results (246), cardiology clinics and in-patient progress. Outcomes were analyzed via parametric modeling with multivariate risk-adjusted regression. All risk factors were tested for reliability through bootstrap bagging (N=1000). Results Genetic defects were confirmed in 180 (11%). Aberrations included duplications (98; T21=56, T18=21, T10=13), Ch22 defects (47), Turner (4) and specific gene mutations. An additional 180 (11%) had defined clinical syndromes or congenital non-cardiac defects. Acquired non-cardiac co-morbidity at time of presentation was present in 244 (15%) (CNS=11; Resp=69; GIT=55; Renal=30; Sepsis=70), 144 of whom also had genetic defects. “Perfect” patients - lacking genetic, syndromic or acquired co-morbidites - comprised 1118 (69%). Comfort care was offered to 61 (Perfect=11; T18=21; T13=8; T21=1; Acquired=2). The actively managed 1557 showed late survival >90% for the “perfect” patient. Genetic defects/syndromes and acquired co-morbidity strongly affected survival (figure). However in risk-adjusted analyses, chromosomal/gene defects were overshadowed by acquired morbidity or congenital defects affecting specific systems (table; CNS, Respiratory). Conclusions The “perfect” neonate with congenital hearts disease has an excellent prognosis. However, chromosomal/genetic aberrations do not necessarily imply poor outcome. Instead, acquired non-cardiac morbidity at time of presentation are stronger determinants of outcome.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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