International Pediatric Perfusion Practice: 2016 Survey Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New cardiopulmonary bypass device techniques emerge and are reported in the scientific literature. The extent to which they are actually adopted into clinical practice is not well known. Since 1989, we have periodically surveyed pediatric cardiac centers to ascertain practice patterns. In December 2016, a 186-question perfusion survey was distributed to pediatric cardiac surgery centers all over the world using a Web-based survey tool. Responses were received from 93 North American (NA) centers (the United States and Canada) and 67 non–NA (NNA) centers, representing 19,645 cumulative annual procedures in NA and 27,776 in NNA centers on patients <18 years. Wide variation in practice was evident across geographic regions. However, the most common pediatric circuit consisted of a hard-shell (open) venous reservoir, an arterial roller pump, and a hollow-fiber membrane oxygenator with a separate or integrated arterial filter. Compared with our previous surveys, there was increased utilization of all types of safety devices. The use of an electronic perfusion record was reported by 50% of NA centers and 31% of NNA centers. There was wide regional variation in cardioplegia delivery systems and cardioplegia solutions. Seventy-nine percent of the centers reported the use of some form of modified ultrafiltration. The survey demonstrated that there remains variation in perfusion practice for pediatric patients. Future surveys will be useful to evaluate the adoption of emerging perfusion practice guidelines.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".