MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296780185 · doi:10.1093/pch/21.supp5.e62b

Audit of Pulse Oximetry Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Disease (Cchd) in Newborns

2016· article· en· W4296780185 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M Lightfoot, P Hough, A Hudak, M Gordon, S Barker, R Meeder, M Colpitts, J Roberts, WG Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulse oximetryPediatricsAuditEmergency medicineHeart diseaseNewborn screeningAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: UK data suggests that 25% of infants with CCHD are not diagnosed with heart disease until after discharge from the nursery (0.6 per 1000). In general SpO2 ≤ to 95% or a difference of upper and lower SpO2 of more than 3% in a newborn greater than 24 hours of age is considered significant. In March 2014 the Maternal Child Newborn Screening Committee of the Provincial Council for Maternal Child Health (PCMCH) recommended screening for critical congenital heart disease in Ontario. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and cost related parameters of a new screening protocol for CCHD. DESIGN/METHODS: An audit of consecutive healthy normal newborn patients over a one-year period was undertaken. RESULTS: The cost of screening estimated for our center was approximately $7.20 per patient. The median age of screening was 25 hours (6-80 hours). Four patients were screened positive and were seen by a paediatrician in consultation. No Echocardiograms were ordered. No child in this screening survey had CCHD (specificity 99.4%). The screening compliance was 94.7%. One patient from our regional catchment area was delivered at an alternate secondary level center where there is no CCHD protocol in effect. The infant was discharged home and returned to the primary level center two days later in shock. The ultimate diagnosis was Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome. The estimated cost of the resuscitation was $1000. The emergency transport (direct) cost for this unstable newborn by helicopter is estimated to be $5000.00. Conclusion: Cost analysis: The total direct costs of the CCHD screening program for a year is approximately $5200. The costs for the four patients who were falsely identified as having CCHD is estimated at $200. The total direct cost to the system of the one patient in our region who was not screened and was subsequently identified as having CCHD was estimated to be $6000. Assessment issues: In contrast to the US references, none of the false positive cases had an echocardiogram ordered. The cases were dealt with by utilizing a consultation with a paediatrician. Compliance with routine newborn orders: The screening compliance rate of 94.7%. CONCLUSIONS: A simple screening test for Critical Congenital Heart Disease was successfully undertaken in a secondary level center over a one-year period. The test was cost effective, with high specificity (99.4%) and good compliance (94.7%).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→