Language abilities in preschool children with critical CHD: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Children with critical CHD are at risk for neurodevelopmental impairments, including delays in expressive and receptive language development. However, no study has synthesised the literature regarding language abilities in children with this condition. OBJECTIVE: We summarised the literature regarding expressive and receptive language in preschool children with critical CHD. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, ERIC, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies published between January, 1990 and 1 July, 2021, focused on children aged ≤5 years with critical CHD requiring a complex cardiac procedure at age <1 year. Language ability was documented using standardised, validated tools assessing both expressive and receptive language outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Data (study, patient and language characteristics, and results) were extracted by two reviewers. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included. Among children 2-5 years old with critical CHD, there were statistically significant deficits in overall (standardised mean difference: -0.46; 95 % confidence interval: -0.56, -0.35), expressive (standardised mean difference: -0.45;95 % confidence interval: -0.54, -0.37), and receptive (standardised mean difference: -0.32; 95 % confidence interval: -0.40, -0.23) language compared to normative data. Results reported as medians were similar to meta-analysis findings. Subgroup analysis showed that children with univentricular physiology had lower language scores than children with biventricular physiology. CONCLUSIONS: Preschool children with critical CHD had statistically significantly lower language outcomes compared to expected population norms. Healthcare professionals should test early and often for language deficits, referring to individually tailored supports.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".