Managing uncertainty in decision-making of common congenital cardiac defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision-making in congenital cardiac care, although sometimes appearing simple, may prove challenging due to lack of data, uncertainty about outcomes, underlying heuristics, and potential biases in how we reach decisions. We report on the decision-making complexities and uncertainty in management of five commonly encountered congenital cardiac problems: indications for and timing of treatment of subaortic stenosis, closure or observation of small ventricular septal defects, management of new-onset aortic regurgitation in ventricular septal defect, management of anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery in an asymptomatic patient, and indications for operating on a single anomalously draining pulmonary vein. The strategy underpinning each lesion and the indications for and against intervention are outlined. Areas of uncertainty are clearly delineated. Even in the presence of "simple" congenital cardiac lesions, uncertainty exists in decision-making. Awareness and acceptance of uncertainty is first required to facilitate efforts at mitigation. Strategies to circumvent uncertainty in these scenarios include greater availability of evidence-based medicine, larger datasets, standardised clinical assessment and management protocols, and potentially the incorporation of artificial intelligence into the decision-making process.
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 | 0.078 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".