Design and Harmonization Approach for the Multi-Institutional Neurocognitive Discovery Study (MINDS) of Adult Congenital Heart Disease (ACHD) Neuroimaging Ancillary Study: A Technical Note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dramatic advances in the management of congenital heart disease (CHD) have improved survival to adulthood from less than 10% in the 1960s to over 90% in the current era, such that adult CHD (ACHD) patients now outnumber their pediatric counterparts. ACHD patients demonstrate domain-specific neurocognitive deficits associated with reduced quality of life that include deficits in educational attainment and social interaction. Our hypothesis is that ACHD patients exhibit vascular brain injury and structural/physiological brain alterations that are predictive of specific neurocognitive deficits modified by behavioral and environmental enrichment proxies of cognitive reserve (e.g., level of education and lifestyle/social habits). This technical note describes an ancillary study to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)-funded Pediatric Heart Network (PHN) "Multi-Institutional Neurocognitive Discovery Study (MINDS) in Adult Congenital Heart Disease (ACHD)". Leveraging clinical, neuropsychological, and biospecimen data from the parent study, our study will provide structural-physiological correlates of neurocognitive outcomes, representing the first multi-center neuroimaging initiative to be performed in ACHD patients. Limitations of the study include recruitment challenges inherent to an ancillary study, implantable cardiac devices, and harmonization of neuroimaging biomarkers. Results from this research will help shape the care of ACHD patients and further our understanding of the interplay between brain injury and cognitive reserve.
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 | 0.064 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.007 |
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".