MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401408890 · doi:10.1097/og9.0000000000000023

Prenatal Predictors of Survival in Isolated Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia

2024· review· en· W4401408890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alena Tofte, Faezeh Aghajani, Mohammad Jawwad, Anna Flood, F. D’Antonio, Asma Khalil, Hiba J. Mustafa

Bibliographic record

VenueO&G Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCongenital diaphragmatic herniaExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationPrenatal diagnosisFetusSubgroup analysisDiaphragmatic herniaPediatricsObstetricsPregnancyMeta-analysisSurgeryInternal medicineHernia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prenatal fetal imaging findings associated with survival to hospital discharge, persistent pulmonary hypertension (PH), and need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in fetuses with isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) that are undergoing prenatal expectant management. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE through PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2000 up to July 2023. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Studies that reported on prenatal imaging in fetuses with isolated CDH that were undergoing expectant management were included. Primary outcomes were survival to hospital discharge, persistent PH within 28 days of age, and need for ECMO. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed when at least two studies reported on the same prenatal imaging evaluation. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the side (left or right) of CDH. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: A total of 161 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 48 studies meeting the inclusion criteria: 45 (N=3,977) assessed survival, eight (N=994) assessed persistent PH, and 12 (N=2,085) assessed need for ECMO. The pooled proportion was 2,833 of 3,977 (71.2%, 95% CI, 69.8–72.6%) for survival, 565 of 2,085 (27.1%, 95% CI, 25.2–29.1%) for need for ECMO, and 531 of 994 (53.4%, 95% CI, 50.3–56.6%) for need for persistent PH. Prenatal imaging findings that were significantly associated with survival included: total fetal lung volume (mean difference [MD] 13.42, 95% CI, 11.22–15.62), observed-to-expected (O-E) total fetal lung volume less than 30% (odds ratio [OR] 0.09, 95% CI, 0.05–0.17), O-E total fetal lung volume (MD 14.73, 95% CI, 11.62–17.84, I 2 46%), liver/intrathoracic ratio (MD −9.59, 95% CI, −15.73 to −3.46), O-E lung/head ratio (MD 14.03, 95% CI, 12.69–15.36), O-E lung/head ratio less than 25% (OR 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04–0.13), mediastinal shift angle (MD −6.17, 95% CI, −7.70 to −4.64), stomach position in mid-chest (OR 0.14, 95% CI, 0.06–0.36), and intrathoracic liver (OR 0.23, 95% CI, 0.15–0.35). In subgroup analyses, findings for left-sided CDH remained significant in all the aforementioned findings. The only prenatal imaging finding that was significantly associated with persistent PH was intrathoracic liver (OR 1.96, 95% CI, 1.14–3.37), but this association was no longer significant in subgroup analyses. Prenatal imaging findings that were significantly associated with need for ECMO included: O-E total fetal lung volume (MD −10.08, 95% CI, −13.54 to −6.62), O-E lung/head ratio (MD −9.88, 95% CI, 14.44 to −5.33, I 2 30%), subgroup analysis to the left-sided CDH remained significant, percentage of predicted lung volume (MD −9.81, 95% CI, −13.56 to −6.06, I 2 34%), and intrathoracic liver (OR 2.70, 95% CI, 1.60–4.57, I 2 0%), but this association was no longer significant in left-sided CDH subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: Several prenatal imaging findings, including lung measurements, intrathoracic liver, and stomach position, were predictive of neonatal survival. Lung measurement was predictive of need for ECMO, and intrathoracic liver was significantly associated with persistent PH and need for ECMO.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueO&G OpenSame topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207