Closing the gap between acceptable and ideal in catheterisation for paediatric and congenital heart disease—A global view
Bibliographic record
Abstract
" This Expert Consensus Document is a massively important contribution to the community of paediatric and congenital cardiac care. This document was developed as an Expert Consensus Document by the Pediatric and Congenital Interventional Cardiovascular Society, the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology, the Asia-Pacific Pediatric Cardiac Society, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Latin American Society of Interventional Cardiology, as well as the Congenital Cardiac Anesthesia Society and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine.As perfectly stated in the Preamble of this Expert Consensus Document, "This expert consensus document is intended to inform practitioners, payors, hospital administrators and other parties as to the opinion of the aforementioned societies about best practices for cardiac catheterisation and transcatheter management of paediatric and adult patients with congenital heart disease, with added accommodations for resource-limited environments." And, the fact that the authorship of this Expert Consensus Document includes global representation is notable, commendable, and important.This Expert Consensus Document has the potential to fill an important gap for this patient population. National guideline documents for specific aspects of interventions in patients with paediatric heart disease, including training guidelines, do exist. However, this current Expert Consensus Document authored by Holzer and colleagues provides truly globally applicable standards on cardiac catheterisation for both paediatric patients and adults with congenital heart disease (CHD).Our current Editorial provides different regional perspectives from senior physicians dedicated to paediatric and congenital cardiac care who are practicing in Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, Latin America, Australia/New Zealand, and North America. Establishing worldwide standards for cardiac catheterisation laboratories for children and adults with CHD is a significant stride towards improving the quality and consistency of care. These standards should not only reflect the current state of medical knowledge but should also be adaptable to future advancements, ultimately fostering better outcomes and enhancing the lives of individuals affected by CHD worldwide.Ensuring that these standards are accessible and adaptable across different healthcare settings globally is a critical step. Given the variability in resources and infrastructure globally, the need exists for flexibility and tailoring to implement recommendations.The potential impact of the Expert Consensus Document and its recommendations is likely significant, but heterogeneity of healthcare systems will pose continuing challenges on healthcare professionals. Indeed, this heterogeneity of healthcare systems will challenge healthcare professionals to finally close the gap between acceptable and ideal in the catheterisation of patients with paediatric and/or congenital heart disease.
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 | 0.039 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".