MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Waitlist Outcomes for Pediatric Heart Transplantation in the Current Era: An Analysis of the Pediatric Heart Transplant Society Database

2024· article· en· W4400128469 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan J. Butts, Leah Toombs, James K. Kirklin, Kurt R. Schumacher, Jennifer Conway, Shawn C. West, Scott R. Auerbach, Neha Bansal, Hong Zhao, Ryan S. Cantor, Deipanjan Nandi, David M. Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationHeart transplantationDilated cardiomyopathyHazard ratioHeart failureCohortCardiomyopathyDatabaseProportional hazards modelHeart diseaseHeart transplantsSubgroup analysisInternal medicinePediatricsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Waitlist mortality (WM) remains elevated in pediatric heart transplantation. Allocation policy is a potential tool to help improve WM. This study aims to identify patients at highest risk for WM to potentially inform future allocation policy changes. METHODS: The Pediatric Heart Transplant Society database was queried for patients <18 years of age indicated for heart transplantation between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2021. Waitlist mortality was defined as death while awaiting transplant or removal from the waitlist due to clinical deterioration. Because WM is low after the first year, analysis was limited to the first 12 months on the heart transplant list. Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank testing was conducted to compare unadjusted survival between groups. Cox proportional hazard models were created to determine risk factors for WM. Subgroup analysis was performed for status 1A patients based on body surface area (BSA) at time of listing, cardiac diagnosis, and presence of mechanical circulatory support. RESULTS: In total 5974 children met study criteria of which 3928 were status 1A, 1012 were status 1B, 963 were listed status 2, and 65 were listed status 7. Because of the significant burden of WM experienced by 1A patients, further analysis was performed in only patients indicated as 1A. Within that group of patients, those with smaller size and lower eGFR had higher WM, whereas those patients without congenital heart disease or support from a ventricular assist device (VAD) at time of listing had decreased WM. In the smallest size cohort, cardiac diagnoses other than dilated cardiomyopathy were risk factors for WM. Previous cardiac surgery was a risk factor in the 0.3 to 0.7 m 2 and >0.7 m 2 BSA groups. VAD support was associated with lower WM other than in the single ventricle cohort, where VAD was associated with higher WM. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and mechanical ventilation were associated with increased risk of WM in all cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in WM among status-1A patients. Potential refinements to current allocation system should factor in the increased WM risk we identified in patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or mechanical ventilation, single ventricle congenital heart disease on VAD support and small children with congenital heart disease, restrictive cardiomyopathy, or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207