Symptomatic Presentation Influences Outcomes in Pediatric Restrictive Cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Children with restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) traditionally have a poor prognosis, with most patients either dying or requiring heart transplantation within 2 years of diagnosis. The development of symptoms in RCM suggests advanced disease, however no study has directly compared outcomes of these patients based on symptoms at time of diagnosis. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare children with RCM presenting with symptoms to those presenting without symptoms. Times to transplantation, death, and a composite outcome of adverse cardiac events (CPR, cardioversion, inotropic support, mechanical ventilation, mechanical support, or heart transplant) were outcomes of interest for statistical analysis. In total 25 patients with RCM were included. At 2 years following diagnosis, asymptomatic patients had a significantly better transplant-free survival at 57% compared to 17% for symptomatic patients (p = 0.03). Asymptomatic patients also had significantly improved cardiac event-free survival at 71% compared to symptomatic patients at 25% (p = 0.01). In multivariable analysis, cardiac symptoms at presentation remained an independent risk factor for heart-transplant or death (hazard ratio 5.17 (1.28–20.85), p = 0.02). In conclusion, the development of cardiac symptoms in pediatric RCM patients may be associated with a worse transplant-free survival.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".