Diagnosis and management of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a 2023 update from the Canadian Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH) Collaborative sought to make its existing clinical practice guideline, published in 2018, into a 'living document'. DESIGN AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Critical appraisal of CDH literature adhering to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Evidence accumulated between 1 January 2017 and 30 August 2022 was analysed to inform changes to existing or the development of new CDH care recommendations. Strength of consensus was also determined using a modified Delphi process among national experts in the field. RESULTS: Of the 3868 articles retrieved in our search that covered the 15 areas of CDH care, 459 underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 103 articles were used to inform 20 changes to existing recommendations, which included aspects related to prenatal diagnosis, echocardiographic evaluation, pulmonary hypertension management, surgical readiness criteria, the type of surgical repair and long-term health surveillance. Fifteen new CDH care recommendations were also created using this evidence, with most related to the management of pain and the provision of analgesia and neuromuscular blockade for patients with CDH. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 Canadian CDH Collaborative's clinical practice guideline update provides a management framework for infants and children with CDH based on the best available evidence and expert consensus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".