Clinical approach to mechanical circulatory support in the transplant patient from the Pediatric Heart Transplant Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for pediatric patients who have undergone heart transplant has grown rapidly in the past decade. This includes support in the immediate post-transplant period and "rescue" therapy for patient later in their transplant course. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) remains a standard modality of support for intraoperative concerns and for acute decompensation in the immediate post-transplant period. However, both pulsatile and continuous flow ventricular assist devices (VADs) have been used with increasing success in transplant patients for longer durations of support. Centers participating in the Pediatric Heart Transplant Society (PHTS) were queried to provide their internal protocols and rationale for mechanical circulatory support following heart transplant. These protocols coupled with evidence-based literature were used to provide the following description of clinical approaches to MCS in the transplant patient highlighting areas of both broad consensus and significant practice variation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".