Early Echocardiography Predicts Intervention Need in Antenatal Suspicion of Coarctation of the Aorta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Coarctation of the aorta (CoA) is challenging to diagnose in early postnatal life. We aimed to describe the resource utilization and predictors for the need of intervention in an antenatal suspicion of CoA. Methods A retrospective study of infants with an antenatal suspicion of CoA born at ≥37 weeks was performed. Those not requiring intervention (normal) were compared with those who required cardiac surgery (CoA). Strain was measured using speckle-tracking echocardiography. Results A total of 51 newborns were included; 40 (78%) were considered normal and 11 (22%) underwent intervention. Echocardiography occurred within the first day of life for both groups. Right ventricular (RV) predominance was present in the CoA group, as demonstrated by the left ventricular (LV) end-systolic eccentricity index (1.60 [0.28] vs 2.16 [0.45]; P < 0.001) and by a larger RV end-diastolic area (EDA) in apical 4-chamber (A4C) relative to LV-EDA—with a ratio of 1.56 [0.23] vs 1.02 [0.2]; P < 0.001. An RV/LV EDA ratio in A4C ≥1.3 had a high probability for CoA (area under the curve = 0.97). Newborns with CoA had a lower RV deformation (peak systolic strain rate: −0.98 [0.17] vs −0.83 [0.2]; P = 0.02). Intraclass correlation coefficient for the EDA ratio revealed a good inter-rater agreement (0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.87). Analysis with rater #2 revealed that the EDA ratio ≥1.3 predicted 100% of CoA. Conclusions The majority of those with an antenatal suspicion of CoA did not require intervention but were high consumers of resources. Within the first day of life, the ventricular EDA ratio in A4C may help predicting those with true CoA requiring intervention.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".