Contemporary transesophageal echocardiography practice patterns among paediatric cardiology centres in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterise transesophageal echocardiography practice patterns among paediatric cardiac surgical centres in the United States and Canada. METHODS: A 42-question survey was sent to 80 echocardiography laboratory directors at paediatric cardiology centres with surgical programmes in the United States and Canada. Question domains included transesophageal echocardiography centre characteristics, performance and reporting, equipment use, trainee participation, and quality assurance. RESULTS: Fifty of the 80 centres (62.5%) responded to the survey. Most settings were academic (86.0%) with 42.0% of centres performing > 350 surgical cases/year. The median number of transesophageal echocardiograms performed/cardiologist/year was 50 (26, 73). Pre-operative transesophageal echocardiography was performed in most surgical cases by 91.7% of centres. Transesophageal echocardiography was always performed by most centres following Norwood, Glenn, and Fontan procedures and by < 10% of centres following coarctation repair. Many centres with a written guideline allowed transesophageal echocardiography transducer use at weights below manufacturer recommendations (50.0 and 61.1% for neonatal and paediatric transducers, respectively). Most centres (36/37, 97.3%) with categorical fellowships had rotations which included transesophageal echocardiography participation. Large surgical centres (>350 cases/year) had higher median number of transesophageal echocardiograms/cardiologist/year (75.5 [53, 86] versus 35 [20, 52], p < 0.001) and more frequently used anaesthesia for diagnostic transesophageal echocardiography ≥ 67% of time (100.0 versus 62.1%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in transesophageal echocardiography practice patterns and training requirements among paediatric cardiology centres in the United States and Canada. Findings may help inform programmatic decisions regarding transesophageal echocardiography expectations, performance and reporting, equipment use, trainee involvement, and quality assurance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".